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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 20 July 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, the two foreign documents are absent from the file.
Specification
The amendment filed 17 July 2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/EP2023/051259 and of the foreign patent application German Patent Application No. 10 2022 101 440.1 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 19 January 20223 see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 17 July 2024 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “of of” appears to be in error. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “evaporation unit” [i.e. unit (generic placeholder) for evaporation (functional language)], “compression unit” [i.e. unit (generic placeholder) for evaporation (functional language)], “expansion unit” [i.e. unit (generic placeholder) for expansion (functional language)] in claims 1-7; “regulating device” [i.e. device (generic placeholder) for regulating (functional language)] in claim 3; “working-medium collection unit” [i.e. unit (generic placeholder) for working-medium collection] in claim 4; and “heat recovery unit” [i.e. unit (generic placeholder) for heat recovery] in claim 5.
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. In the case of evaporation unit, compression unit, and expansion unit, the corresponding structure(s) are found in paragraphs [0019]; [0021]; In the case of regulating device, valve and/or control device are found to be the corresponding structure; In the case of working-medium collection unit, the corresponding structure(s) are found in paragraph [0079]; In the case of heat recovery unit, the corresponding structure(s) are found in paragraph [0033].
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 1-15 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Specific examples are called out below, but due to the numerous errors, Applicant’s assistance is appreciated in correcting errors of which Applicant may become aware.
Claims 1-5 and 6-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the units”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It has been interpreted as “units”. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “on a technical level”. This limitation cannot be understood as presented. What would meet or fail to meet a “technical level”? Claim 1 also includes a “.” before limitation “a)”. Claims in US practice do not include “.” except at the end of the claim. Claims 2-5 and 6-7 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on or incorporate claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation “the power”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation “in a fluid-technical manner”. This limitation cannot be understood as presented. What would meet or fail to meet a “fluid-technical level”?
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation “in a fluid-technical manner”. This limitation cannot be understood as presented. What would meet or fail to meet a “fluid-technical level”?
Claims 6-7 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “a fluid working medium which is located in a closed working-medium circulation system of the heat pump”; “an evaporation unit”, “a condenser unit”, “a heat exchanger unit”, “at least one compression unit”. It is unclear if these are the same or different from claim 1. They are believed to be the same and that the claim should be amended to reflect which limitations from claim 1 are intended to be included in claim 6.
Claims 8-13 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 8 recites the limitation “the steps”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the steps”. It has been interpreted as “steps”. It is further unclear why step “c” occurs between steps c) and d). Note that a later claim includes a step c’. Claims 9-13 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 8 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation “the power”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is 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 13 include “.” after each of the optional temperature ranges. Claims in US practice do not include “.” except at the end of the claim.
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 (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 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iijima (US 2013/0298596).
Regarding claim 1, Iijima shows Heat pump [see at least refrigeration cycle #1] for generating process heat comprising a closed working-medium circulation system which is designed to guide a fluid working medium in one circulation direction and in which the units mentioned under a) to d) are fluidically connected in series in the circulation direction on a technical level [inherent to refrigeration cycle #1 as disclosed].
a) an evaporation unit which is designed to transfer thermal energy from a first external medium to the fluid working medium and to convert the fluid working medium from a liquid aggregate state to a gaseous aggregate state [see at least evaporator #5];
b) a compression unit which is designed to compress the fluid working medium in the gaseous aggregate state under an increase in pressure and temperature [see at least compressor #5];
c) a condenser unit which is designed to transfer thermal energy from the compressed fluid working medium to a second external medium and to convert the compressed fluid working medium from the gaseous aggregate state to the liquid aggregate state [see at least condenser #3]; and
d) an expansion unit which is designed to decompress the compressed fluid working medium in the liquid aggregate state under pressure and subject to a reduction in temperature [see at least expansion device #4],
wherein a heat-exchanger unit is fluidically integrated between the condenser unit and the expansion unit on a technical level in the working-medium circulation system, which is designed to transfer thermal energy from the compressed fluid working medium in the liquid aggregate state to a third external medium [see at least supercooler #8].
Regarding claim 2, Iijima further shows wherein the heat-exchanger unit (40) comprises a supercooling unit [see at least supercooler #8].
Regarding claim 3, Iijima further shows wherein a regulating device is provided which is designed to adjust the power of the heat-exchanging unit [see at least paragraph [0048]: control unit acts as a regulating device capable of performing the claimed function].
Regarding claim 4, Iijima further shows wherein a working-medium collection unit is provided in a fluid-technical manner between the condenser unit and the heat-exchanger unit, which is designed to separate the fluid working medium in the liquid aggregate state from any remaining fluid working medium in the gaseous aggregate state and to convey the fluid working medium in the liquid aggregate state in the direction of the heat-exchanger unit [see at least gas-liquid separation part #9].
Regarding claim 5, Iijima further shows wherein a heat recovery unit is provided and designed in a fluid-technical manner in the working-medium circulation system in such a way as to transfer thermal energy from the compressed fluid working medium in the liquid aggregate state, if it flows from the condenser unit in the direction of of the expansion unit, to the fluid working medium in the gaseous aggregate state when it flows from the evaporation unit towards of the compression unit [see at least internal heat exchanger #25: Examiner notes that internal heat exchanger #25 performs heat exchange between liquid refrigerant and gaseous refrigerant based on its position in the system].
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iijima (US 2013/0298596).
Regarding claim 6, Iijima shows A system for generating process heat comprising:
- a heat pump according to Claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1, above];
- a fluid working medium which is located in a closed working-medium circulation system of the heat pump [see at least refrigerant [paragraph [0015]];
- a reservoir of a first external medium, which is fluidically connected to an evaporation unit of the heat pump [see at least air about evaporator #5];
- a reservoir of a second external medium which is fluidically connected to a condenser unit of the heat pump [see at least air about condenser #7];
- a reservoir of a third external medium which is fluidically connected to a heat- exchanger unit of the heat pump [see at least air about supercooler #8]; and
- a control device which is actively connected to at least one compression unit of the heat pump [see at least paragraph [0048]].
Regarding claim 7, Iijima further shows wherein the first external medium and/or the second external medium and/or the third external medium comprises or is water [see at least air around evaporator #5, condenser #3, and/or supercooler #8: Examiner notes that air comprises water, in the form of water vapor].
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iijima (US 2013/0298596).
Regarding claim 8, Iijima shows A method for generating process heat in which a fluid working medium is guided in a closed working-medium circulation system (see at least #1) in one circulation direction and in which the steps mentioned under a) to d) are sequentially carried out in the circulation direction:
a) transfer of thermal energy from a first external medium to the fluid working medium and transfer of the fluid working medium from a liquid aggregate state to a gaseous aggregate state [see at least inherent to evaporator #5];
b) compression of the fluid working medium in the gaseous aggregate state under pressure and subject to an increase in temperature [see at least inherent to compressor #2];
c) transfer of thermal energy from the compressed fluid working medium to a second external medium and transfer of the compressed fluid working medium from the gaseous aggregate state to the liquid aggregate state [see at least inherent to condenser #3]; and
d) decompression of the compressed fluid working medium in the liquid aggregate state under pressure and subject to a reduction in temperature [see at least inherent to expansion device #4], characterized in that between steps c) and d) a transfer of thermal energy takes place from the compressed fluid working medium in the liquid aggregate state to a third external medium (step c) [see at least inherent to supercooler #8].
Regarding claim 9, Iijima further shows wherein the compressed fluid working medium in the liquid aggregate state is supercooled during the transfer of the thermal energy to the third external medium [see at least inherent to supercooler #8].
Regarding claim 10, Iijima further shows wherein the power for the transfer of thermal energy is adjusted from the compressed fluid working medium in the liquid aggregate state to the third external medium [see at least paragraph [0048]: control unit will perform this step].
Regarding claim 11, Iijima further shows wherein, after step (c) and before the fluid working medium transfers the thermal energy to the third external medium, a separation of the fluid working medium in the liquid aggregate state from still existing fluid working medium in the gaseous aggregate state takes place and a transfer of the fluid working medium for the transfer of the thermal energy to the third external medium takes place (step c') [see at least inherent to gas-liquid separation part #9].
Regarding claim 12, Iijima further shows wherein characterized in that, between steps c) and d), thermal energy is transferred from the compressed fluid working medium in the liquid aggregate state to the fluid working medium in the gaseous aggregate state which is between steps a) and b) (step a') [see at least inherent internal heat exchanger #25: Examiner notes that internal heat exchanger #25 performs heat exchange between liquid refrigerant and gaseous refrigerant based on its position in the system].
Regarding claim 13, Iijima further shows wherein characterized in that at least one of the following temperature levels is achieved:
- temperature (58) of the first external medium between 20°C and 150°C [see at least paragraph [0014]].
- temperature (64) of the second external medium between 50°C and 250°C.
- temperature (74) of the third external medium between 40°C and 200°C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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 at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763