DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-16, drawn to a method for conditioning air, classified in B01L1/025.
II. Claims 17-21, drawn to a test chamber, classified in B01L1/025.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus can be used to practice another process such as heating, or also cooling without dehumidifying.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
a. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and/or
b. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
c. The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different class/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); and/or
d. The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or
e. The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Daniel Ark 9/10/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/12/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-21 are pending with claims 1-16 being examined and claims 17-21 deemed withdrawn.
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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what is attempting to be defined in lines 1-2 because of the phrase “in particular…”. Specifically, the claim broadly recites a test chamber and then recites a narrower limitation of “in particular a climate chamber”. It is unclear whether or not the narrower limitation is required or not and also unclear whether the narrower range is merely an example. See MPEP 2173.05(c) and 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-16 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
As to claim 4, “the other bypass” does not have antecedent basis and it is unclear whether an additional bypass is attempting to be referred to or whether applicants are referring to the “another” bypass.
As to claim 15, it is unclear how a broader temperature of −40° C to +180° C can be achieved when claim 1 requires a temperature of −20° C to +180° C. Therefore, the range of claim 15 appears to be broader than the range of claim 1 and it is unclear how a temperature of -40 ° C to -20 ° C would be able to read on claim 15 without reading on claim 1. The examiner notes that pending applicants response that a 112(d) rejection may apply for failing to further limit the claims. However, as currently drafted, the claims are unclear as to what applicants are attempting to further device.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Reuschel et al (US 20210239668; already of record; hereinafter “Reuschel”).
As to claim 1, Reuschel teaches a method for conditioning air in a test space of a test chamber (Reuschel; abstract, Fig. 1, [37-42]), in particular a climate chamber, for receiving test material, the test space being configured to be sealed from an environment and temperature-insulated, a cooling device of a temperature control device of the test chamber (Reuschel teaches a method of conditioning a temperature insulated test space; [2, 9, 10, 28].), which comprises a cooling circuit with carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2) as a refrigerant (Reuschel teaches using CO2 as refrigerant; [2, 9, 10, 28, 37-42], Fig. 1), a heat exchanger in the test space (Reuschel #12; [2, 9, 10, 28, 37-42], Fig. 1), a low-pressure compressor (Reuschel #13; [2, 9, 10, 20-24, 28, 37-42, 46], Fig. 1), and a high-pressure compressor (Reuschel #14; [2, 9, 10, 20-24, 28, 37-42, 46], Fig. 1), a gas cooler (Reuschel #15; [2, 9, 10, 20-24, 28, 37-42, 46], Fig. 1), and an expansion valve downstream of the low-pressure compressor in a flow direction of the refrigerant (Reuschel #17; [2, 9, 10, 20-24, 28, 37-42, 46], Fig. 1), being used to establish a temperature in a temperature range of −20° C to +180° C within the test space (Reuschel teaches -20 to 180 degrees C; [2, 9, 10, 13, 28]), a control device of the test chamber being used to control the temperature and/or a relative humidity in the test space (Reuschel teaches a control device; [2, 9, 13, 20-24, 28, 29]), wherein a dehumidifier bypass of the cooling circuit, which comprises a second expansion valve and a second heat exchanger in the test space, is used to dehumidify air in the test space (Reuschel teaches the bypass #34 with a second expansion valve #35 and second heat exchanger #37; [2, 9, 10, 20-24, 28, 37-42, 46], Fig. 1).
As to claim 2, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the dehumidifier bypass is connected to a high-pressure side of the cooling circuit downstream of the gas cooler and upstream of the expansion valve and to a low-pressure side of the cooling circuit downstream of the heat exchanger and upstream of the low-pressure compressor, refrigerant being metered from the high-pressure side into the low-pressure side via the second expansion valve in such a manner that the second heat exchanger is cooled (Reuschel teaches that the by pass line #34 is connected to high pressure side of the circuit as it is connected to the side near 14, which is upstream of the expansion valve 17 and is also connected to a low pressure side upstream of the low pressure compressor 13; Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a second bypass with at least a third expansion valve is formed in the cooling circuit, the second bypass being connected to a high-pressure side of the cooling circuit downstream of the gas cooler and upstream of the expansion valve and to a low-pressure side of the cooling circuit downstream of the heat exchanger and upstream of the low-pressure compressor, a suction-gas temperature and/or a suction-gas pressure of the refrigerant on the low-pressure side of the cooling circuit upstream of the low-pressure compressor being controlled by metering refrigerant into the low-pressure side via the third expansion valve (Reuschel teaches a second bypass #30 with third valve #31; Fig. 1, [40]).
As to claim 5, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a rotational speed of the high-pressure compressor and/or of the low-pressure compressor is controlled (Reuschel; [19, 28, 37-42, 46]).
As to claim 7, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a difference in temperature between the heat exchanger and the test space is increased in such a manner that air in the test space is dehumidified (Reuschel; [25, 42]).
As to claim 9, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the cooling circuit has a medium-pressure bypass connected to a high-pressure side of the cooling circuit downstream of the gas cooler and upstream of the expansion valve and to a medium-pressure side of the cooling circuit upstream of the high-pressure compressor and downstream of the low-pressure compressor, refrigerant being metered from the high-pressure side into the medium-pressure side via another expansion valve (Reuschel teaches a medium pressure bypass 28 with another expansion valve 29; Fig. 1, [39]).
As to claim 11, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a medium-pressure side of the cooling circuit is connected to the gas cooler upstream of the high-pressure compressor and downstream of the low-pressure compressor, refrigerant being fed form the low-pressure compressor to the high-pressure compressor via the gas cooler (Reuschel teaches that a medium pressure side 28 is connected to the gas cooler 15 upstream of the high pressure compressor 14 and is downstream of the low pressure compressor 13; Fig. 1, [37-42]).
As to claim 13, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the cooling circuit is operated in a thermodynamically subcritical or transcritical operating state (Reuschel; Fig. 2-5, [15-18, 44]).
As to claim 14, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein pure carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2) is used as the refrigerant (Reuschel; [27]).
As to claim 15, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the temperature control device is used to establish a temperature in a temperature range of −40° C to +180° C within the test space (Reuschel teaches -20 to 180 degrees C; [2, 9, 10, 13, 28]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reuschel et al (US 20210239668; already of record; hereinafter “Reuschel”) in view of Haack et al (US 20180120003; already of record; hereinafter “Haack”).
As to claim 4, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, with the cooling circuit with a high pressure side and low-pressure side (see claim 1).
Reuschel does not teach another bypass with another valve to control the suction line pressure. However, Haack teaches the analogous art of conditioning a test chamber (Haack; abstract) with a second bypass 35 and a corresponding valve 37 to control the pressure (Haack; [41, 42], Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cooling circuit of Reuschel to include the additional bypass with valve to control the pressure as in Haack because Haack teaches that it is known to adjust the pressure to compensate for pressure variances tween the high and low pressure sides (Haack; [41, 42]).
As to claim 10, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, with the cooling circuit with a high pressure side and low-pressure side (see claim 1).
Reuschel does not teach an internal heat exchanger with another further expansion valve. However, Haack teaches the analogous art of conditioning a test chamber (Haack; abstract) with an internal heat exchanger 24 and further expansion valve 34 to meter refrigerant (Haack; [39, 40], Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cooling circuit of Reuschel to include the internal heat exchanger as in Haack because Haack teaches that this provides an undercooling section to supplement cooling (Haack; [39, 40]).
Claim 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reuschel et al (US 20210239668; already of record; hereinafter “Reuschel”) in view of Blaufelder et al (US 20200264091; already of record; hereinafter “Blaufelder”).
As to claims 6 and 8, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, with a suction-gas pressure in the low-pressure side of the cooling circuit and increasing or decreasing the temperature (see above).
Reuschel does not teach adjusting the suction gas pressure to increase or decrease. However, Blaufelder teaches the analogous art of a cooling circuit for a test chamber (Blaufelder; abstract) where the suction pressure can be altered based on the requirements of the system (Blaufelder; [4, 15]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the suction pressure in the cooling circuit of Reuschel by varying the pressure as in Blaufelder because Blaufelder teaches that the suction pressure can be varied based on an amount of refrigerant or also based on the requirements of operating the system (Blaufelder; [4, 15]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reuschel et al (US 20210239668; already of record; hereinafter “Reuschel”) in view of Haack et al (US 20190093926; already of record; hereinafter “Haack II”).
As to claim 12, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, a medium pressure side of the cooling circuit connecting the high pressure compressor and lower pressure compressor (see claim 1).
Reuschel does not teach an intercooler between the compressors. However, Haack II teaches the analogous art of conditioning a test chamber (Haack II; abstract) with an intercooler 31 between the low and high pressure side (Haack II; [37, 38], Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cooling circuit of Reuschel to include an additional cooler as in Haack II because Haack II teaches that it is known to use the cooler to aid in cooling the gaseous refrigerant which has a high temperature (Haack II; [37, 38], Fig. 1).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reuschel et al (US 20210239668; already of record; hereinafter “Reuschel”).
As to claim 16, Reuschel teaches the method according to claim 1, where the temperature control device is used to control the humidity at a temperature in the range of −20° C to +180° C within the test space (Reuschel teaches -20 to 180 degrees C; [2, 9, 10, 13, 25, 28, 42]).
Reuschel does not specifically teach controlling a relative humidity in a range of 10% to 95% at a temperature in a temperature range of +10° C to +90° C within the test space. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the humidity and temperature of the test space of Reuschel to be within in a range of 10% to 95% at a temperature in a temperature range of +10° C to +90° C within the test space depending on the test conditions that were required since these test conditions fall within the parameters of Reuschel. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits (see MPEP 2144.05).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11561211 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of ‘211 teaches a method for conditioning a space to a temperature of -20 to 180 degrees C using carbon dioxide, the cooling device/circuit having a heat exchanger, a low pressure compressor, a high pressure compressor, a gas cooler, and an expansion valve downstream of the compressor. Claim 14 of ‘211 teaches the dehumidifier bypass with another heat exchanger and valve. Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claims are encompassed by the claims of US 11561211.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Application No. 18987628. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of ‘628 teaches a method for conditioning a space to a temperature of -20 to 180 degrees C using carbon dioxide, the cooling device/circuit having a heat exchanger, a low pressure compressor, a high pressure compressor, a gas cooler, and an expansion valve downstream of the compressor, and with another cooling circuit (ie. bypass) with another heat exchanger and valve. Claim 14 of ‘628 also teaches another bypass for dehumidifying with an additional heat exchanger and valve. Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claims are encompassed by the claims of U.S. Application No. 18987628.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Berchtold, El (US 6374621; hereinafter “Berchtold”; already of record) teaches connecting the dehumidifier bypass to the suction line upstream of the low pressure compressor; Fig. 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/Benjamin R Whatley/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights