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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the reference sign “10” as mentioned in the description. 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. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the implied phrase “In one embodiment”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because it contains embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Furthermore, the attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to the listed hyperlinks is ineffective because use of such hyperlinks is not allowed.
The disclosure is objected to because page 8, at line 16, recite “filter drier 14” but should instead read “filter drier 22”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Claims 1-20 are objected to because the current claim numbering is improper, as the previous claim set (filed 2/17/2025) was directed to claims 1-80 and the currently amended claims are directed to claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 20, the claims recite an ultrasonic flowmeter configured to provide an early-warning leak detection for a refrigeration system. There is no disclosure as to how or in what fashion the flowmeter is capable of providing such an early-warning leak detection, thus in order to make and use the invention, one skilled in the art would be required to discover how to utilize an ultrasonic flowmeter to make the claimed leak detection on their own without guidance from the disclosure. In light of the lack of direction provided by the inventor, the state of the prior art, and the level of one of ordinary skill in the refrigeration technology areas, such would result in an undue amount of experimentation and thus the claims are not considered to meet the enablement requirement.
Regarding claims 2-15 and 17-19, the claims are rejected due to dependence from rejected claims 1, 16, and 20.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 20, the term “early-warning” in each claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “early” 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. Specifically, it is unclear what timing of a warning would be considered to be “early” as opposed to a timely or late warning. For examination purposes any warning that is not explicitly set forth as being a late warning will be considered to meet the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claims 2-15 and 17-19, the claims are rejected due to dependence from rejected claims 1 and 37.
Further regarding claim 13, the claim recites “said Doppler ultrasonic flowmeter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is presumed to refer to the ultrasonic flowmeter recited in claim 1.
Further regarding claim 15, the claim recites “said evaporator” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearl (US 5,333,467) in view of Nanba (US 2019/0011325).
As to claim 1, Pearl teaches a detection assembly system comprising:
a refrigeration system having a filter drier 71 and an expansion valve 73;
a sight glass 72 disposed downstream of the filter drier 71 (Fig. 2);
a conduit 68 in sealed flow communication between the filter drier 71, expansion valve 73, and the sight glass 72 (Fig. 2); and
an electronic leak sensor (col. 8, lines 57-59).
Pearl is silent regarding the specifics of using an electronic leak sensor, and thus does not explicitly teach use of an ultrasonic flowmeter as claimed. However, Nanba teaches that it is known to utilize a non-invasive ultrasonic flowmeter 1-3 on an exterior surface of pipe 5 adjacent to, but fluidly isolated from filter drier and sight glass type components downstream from a high side reservoir of the type utilized by Pearl (Fig. 1). The ultrasonic flowmeter of Nanba includes at least one ultrasonic transducer 1/2 adapted to transmit and receive an ultrasonic signal through the pipe 5 and refrigerant contained therein, wherein the ultrasonic flowmeter is operable to non-invasively monitor liquid refrigerant flow upstream of an expansion valve (Fig. 1). In light of this teaching it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Pearl to utilize an ultrasonic flowmeter as claimed and taught by Nanba in order to provide a user with an effective means of detecting leaks (see Nanba, paragraph 10).
As to claim 2, Nanba teaches a user interface 4 in electric communication with the flowmeter 1-3 (Fig. 1; paragraph 42).
As to claim 3, the modified apparatus does not explicitly include a remote user interface. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the Nanba reference by having the interface 4 be a remote interface, since applicant has not disclosed that having a particular interface type solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the system would perform equally well with any appropriate type of user interface.
As to claims 4-5, the modified apparatus is silent regarding interface adjustment controls. However, Official Notice is taken that provision of a user interface with adjustable parameters is a common and typical feature of the controls art that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the detection system of Nanba for the purpose of providing customizable leakage detection control.
As to claim 6, the system is an electronic vapor compression system and thus inherently includes some type of shut-down control.
As to claims 7-9, the modified apparatus is silent regarding optics systems and remote compressor monitoring systems as claimed. However, Official Notice is taken that such devices are common and typical features of the controls art that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the detection system of Nanba for the purpose of providing remote monitoring of system operations.
As to claim 10, Nanba teaches a first and second transducer 1-2 as claimed.
As to claim 11, the modified apparatus does not explicitly include a lyophilization freeze drying assembly. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the system of Pearl to be utilized with a lyophilization freeze drying assembly, since applicant has not disclosed that use with/of a particular type of cooling device solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the system would perform equally well with any appropriate type of cooling system.
As to claim 12, Nanba teaches employing a frequency shift of an ultrasonic signal reflected by suspended particles or bubbles (paragraph 12).
As to claim 13, Nanba teaches using a Doppler ultrasonic flowmeter as claimed (paragraph 25).
As to claim 14, Nanba teaches using a Doppler ultrasonic flowmeter in the same manner as disclosed in the instant application and thus is considered to include the same necessary components as the instant application, including a transmitter, indicator, totalizer, and transducer.
As to claim 15, Pearl teaches a compressor 64 downstream of an evaporator 61, a low pressure gas between the evaporator 61 and compressor 64; a condenser 67 downstream of compressor 64, and a receiver 69 downstream of the condenser 67 (Fig. 1).
As to claim 16, the modified apparatus teaches the limitations as claimed, including the sensor 1-3 being affixed about a conduit (Nanba, Fig. 1; paragraph 12).
As to claim 17, Nanba teaches a transmitter adapted to transmit an ultrasonic signal circumferentially about said conduit and a fluid component broadcasting through the conduit (Fig. 1; paragraphs 25 and 35).
As to claim 18, the flowmeter 1-3 of Nanba is independent of a sight glass.
As to claim 19, the flowmeter of the modified apparatus is between filter drier 71 and sight glass 72 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claims 20, the claim is rejected in view of Peral and Nanba for the same reasons as discussed in the rejections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant generally alleges that the amendments to the claims overcome the prior art of record. The examiner respectfully disagrees, and for the reasons as discussed in the rejections above it is maintained that the claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
