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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of legal phraseology Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means”, “said” and “comprising” should be avoided.
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 “compressors”, “evaporators” and “heat exchangers”, 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 Interpretation
Claims 2 recites the limitation "and/or" and will be interpreted as –or--.
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 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.
Regarding Claim 1, limitations “means for being fastened” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding Claim 4, limitations “flow-conducting” and “flow-generating device” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “all or a large majority of the air-conditioning means” in ll. 11 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what constitutes a large majority or rather what air conditioning components are excluded from the entirety. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “all or a large majority of the air-conditioning means” will be interpreted as – all or a portion of the air-conditioning means --.
Claim limitations “means for being fastened”, “flow-conducting” and “flow-generating device” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification states that the means for fastening the air-conditioning apparatus on the housing is “mechanical connecting means” and does not provide any particular structure or component. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “means for being fastened” will be interpreted as –any manner for fastening--.
The specification does not provide any particular structure or component for the “flow-conducting device”. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “flow-conducting device” will be interpreted as –the fan--.
The specification does not provide any particular structure or component for the “flow-generating device”. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “flow- generating device” will be interpreted as –the fan--.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “which are at risk of leaking or susceptible to leaking refrigerant” in ll. 11 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what determines whether or not the component is capable of leaking. All of the components of the air-conditioning system are capable of leaking if punctured, does the capability of leaking equate to being susceptible? For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “which are at risk of leaking or susceptible to leaking refrigerant” will be interpreted as – which are capable of leaking refrigerant --.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “directed toward the free environment and a compartment formed in this regard” in ll. 13 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what dictates the air conditioning means to be directed to the free environment or rather what physical aspect of the air-conditioning means is required by the claim to fulfill the aforementioned components being directed to the free environment. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “directed toward the free environment and a compartment formed in this regard” will be interpreted as – adjacent the free environment --.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “welded, soldered, bent, welted and/or crimped sections” in ll. 5 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned if all of the joining processes are being claimed or rather found in the instant invention. Does the switchgear cabinet air-conditioning apparatus contain portions that are welded, soldered, bent, welted and/or crimped?. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “welded, soldered, bent, welted and/or crimped sections” will be interpreted as –connections --.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “welded, soldered, bent, welted and/or crimped sections”, and the claim also recites “particularly of a refrigerant-carrying evaporator” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “preferably are arranged in the second housing subsection” in ll. 4 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned if the evaporator and the associated piping are being positively claimed to be situated in the second housing. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “preferably are arranged in the second housing subsection” will be interpreted as –are arranged in the second housing subsection --.
The term “quickly” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quickly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The discharge of potentially escaping gaseous refrigerant has been rendered indefinite due to "
The term “effectively” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “effectively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The discharge of potentially escaping gaseous refrigerant has been rendered indefinite due to "effectively". Further clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “the second housing section (9)” in ll. 4 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what structural components are defined by the second housing section. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “the second housing section (9)” will be interpreted as – the second housing subsection (9)--.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “combustible refrigerant can be used” in ll. 3 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned if the combustible refrigerant is being positively claimed. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “combustible refrigerant can be used” will be interpreted as – combustible refrigerant is used --.
The term “essentially” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the housing of the device to be air-conditioned is closed has been rendered indefinite due to " essentially ". Further clarification is required..
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0329585A1), hereinafter referred to as Fuller, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Fuller discloses a switchgear cabinet air-conditioning apparatus for installation on a device (10) to be air-conditioned, wherein
a plurality of electronic or electrotechnical components is arranged in said device (10, “Cooling systems are used in a wide range of technical applications. One particular example is the use of cooling system for cooling electronics cabinets such as switchboards, control cabinets, enclosure systems or computer systems, or generally for cooling any housing enclosing heat producing components”, ¶3), wherein
all air-conditioning means including fans (36-38), compressors (24), heat exchangers (23, 27), piping (shown in figure 3, connecting the components of the vapor compression circuit), refrigerant (contained within the vapor compression circuit) and evaporators (22, 28) are located within a housing (shown in figure 3), wherein
the housing has means for being fastened on a section in the device to be air-conditioned (shown in figure 3), and wherein
the housing comprises a first subsection (29) oriented toward the device (shown in figure 3) to be air-conditioned and a second subsection (30) directed toward the free environment (shown in figure 3),
characterized in that a separation region (32) is formed between the first and the second housing subsections (shown in figure 3), wherein
all or a large majority of the air-conditioning means, which are at risk of leaking or susceptible to leaking refrigerant, are arranged in the second subsection (shown in figure 3) directed toward the free environment and a compartment formed in this regard
(shown in figure 3).
Fuller discloses the claimed invention except for multiple compressors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include multiple compressors for the purpose of producing staged compression or an increased compression rate, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Regarding Claim 2, Fuller further discloses welded, soldered, bent, welted and/or crimped sections, particularly of a refrigerant-carrying evaporator (22), including the associated piping preferably are arranged in the second housing subsection (30, shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Fuller further discloses separable refrigerant-carrying connections are arranged in the second housing subsection (shown in figure 3, wherein the connections of the vapor compression system are capable of being separated).
Regarding Claim 4, Fuller discloses a flow-conducting and/or flow-generating device (37-38) is provided in or on the second housing section (9) in order to
quickly and effectively discharge potentially escaping gaseous refrigerant from the region of the second housing subsection into the environment (shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 4, MPEP 2114 II clearly states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and a claim having a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 4 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding “in order to quickly and effectively discharge potentially escaping gaseous refrigerant from the region of the second housing subsection into the environment”, the invention as taught by Fuller is deemed fully capable of performing such function. Fuller comprises multiple fans which are capable of evacuating refrigerant from a compartment. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the combination of the references put forth in this action.
Regarding Claim 6, Fuller discloses the housing of the device to be air-conditioned essentially is closed or can be closed (shown in figure 3, wherein the cabinet is essentially closed except for the air flow passages fluidly connected with the cooling system (100)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0329585A1) as applied in Claims 1-4 and 6 above and in further view of Starp et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0329586A1), hereinafter referred to as Starp, respectively.
Regarding Claim 5, Fuller fails to disclose a combustible refrigerant can be used.
Starp, also drawn to a cabinet cooling device, teaches a combustible refrigerant can be used (“For environmental protection reasons it has become desirable to use refrigerants or coolants with a low Global Warming Potential (GWP) in cooling systems. However, most refrigerants or coolants with a low GWP such as propane are combustible, inflammable or harmful substances”, ¶5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Fuller with a combustible refrigerant, as taught by Starp, the motivation being that such fluids have a low global warming potential.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763