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 in response to the filing made 6/01/2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 6/9/2023.. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the priority Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6-8 are objected to for depending from an allowable base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the parent claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 is allowable, because the art of record does not teach, in an obvious combination with the other limitations of the claim, a first heat exchange unit and a second heat exchange unit disposed in the wastewater tank, wherein the first heat exchange unit and the second heat exchange unit each comprise an inlet port and an outlet port, thus allowing a first external fluid and a second external fluid to pass through and exchange heat with the domestic wastewater in the wastewater tank.
Claim 10 is allowable via dependency from parent claim 9.
Claim Interpretation
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 limitations are:
Claim 1
A first heat exchange unit which is interpreted to mean a first heat exchanger (12.)
a throttling element, which is interpreted to mean a valve (13) as depicted in the figures.
a driving device, which is interpreted to mean a pump (21) , as depicted in Fig. 1.
Claim 2
a second heat exchange unit, which is interpreted to mean a second heat exchanger (14).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
US 6,615,602 to Wilkinson.
Regarding claim 1, Wilkinson teaches, a heat pump system (see Figs 3-6), comprising:
a main circuit connecting a compressor (142), a first heat exchanger (108), a throttling element (256), and a refrigerant pipeline of a second heat exchanger (130, 250), where when the heat pump system operates in a heating mode (Fig. 3), the first heat exchanger (108) serves as a condenser and the second heat exchanger (130,250) serves as an evaporator;
a wastewater tank (260) for receiving and storing domestic wastewater;
a wastewater heat recovery circuit (“auxiliary fluid line”, 259, 262, 258, col. 10, 10-25) connecting a driving device (290, pump), a first heat exchange unit (262), and a defrosting pipeline of the second heat exchanger (130,250), wherein the second heat exchanger is a three-medium fluid heat exchanger (the three mediums are air, water, and an auxiliary fluid), the defrosting pipeline and the refrigerant pipeline are thermally coupled with each other (within part 250 of the second heat exchanger 130,250), and the first heat exchange unit (262) is thermally coupled with the wastewater tank (260);
wherein, the heat pump system has a fast defrosting mode (see Fig. 6) in which the wastewater heat recovery circuit transports residual heat from wastewater in the wastewater tank (263) to the second heat exchanger (250, 130) to accelerate defrosting.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,615,602 to Wilkinson to US 6,432,568 to Salvador.
Regarding claim 4, Wilkinson teaches the heat pump system according to claim 1, but does not teach,
wherein the wastewater tank further comprises a drain path with a relief valve disposed thereon, where the relief valve is configured to release a portion of the domestic wastewater in the wastewater tank when the temperature of the domestic wastewater is lower than a first threshold, the first threshold being between 2 °C and 8 °C.
Salvador teaches a water management system for an electrochemical engine, and is material to the present invention because it deals with the same issue of freezing in water tanks. Salvador addresses the possibility of water freezing in a tank, and specifically teaches, a drainage valve is operable to open to release water from a water tank to a freeze tank to avoid freezing the water in the water tank (abstract) (col. 4. Lines 30-50). Salvador also teaches that the valve is temperature activated to avoid freezing (col. 4, 30-50, when outside air is less than 0 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Wilkinson, in view of Salvador, in order to prevent the tank from freezing. Regarding the slight differences in the temperature ranges claimed by applicant and taught by Salvador, for activating the valve, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious mechanical expedient, to a person of ordinary skill in the art. to include or use the teachings of Salvador, in Wilkinson, because using an outside air temperature of less than 0 degrees would allow the system to continue operating a bit longer than the range claimed by applicant, while still offering the needed freeze protection. .
Regarding claim 5, Wilkinson teaches the heat pump system according to claim 1, wherein the three-medium fluid heat exchanger further comprises a fan (132) to exchange heat with ambient air, where the fan is turned off in the fast defrosting mode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T CRENSHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1550. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, JD Fletcher can be reached on 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.
/HENRY T CRENSHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763