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 (IDS) submitted on 07/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC §112
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.
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: “at least one refrigeration expansion device” in claims 8 and 18.
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.
Claim limitation “at least one refrigeration expansion device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “refrigeration expansion” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 8 and 18 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification does not show that the corresponding structure for refrigeration expansion device as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below.
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. 112(f) or 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. 112(f) or 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. 112(f) or 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 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.
Claims 8 and 18 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure of “refrigeration expansion device”, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 calls for the limitation “a plurality of ejectors” in line 3 which is confusing as it is unclear how it relates to the previous recitation of “a plurality of ejectors” above in line 1 of same claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is being considered as -- the plurality of ejectors --.
Claim 1 recites “the first ejector” in line 12. There is antecedent basis for this limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation is being considered as -- a first ejector --.
Claim 8 calls for the limitation “at least one refrigeration evaporator” in line 22 which is confusing as it is unclear how it relates to the previous recitation of “a refrigerating evaporator” above in line 15 of same claim.
Claim 10 recites “the first ejector” in line 8. There is antecedent basis for this limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation is being considered as -- a first ejector --.
Claim 18 recites “the primary high pressure input port” in lines 6-7. There is antecedent basis for this limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation is being considered as -- a primary high pressure input port --.
Claim 18 recites “the secondary low pressure input port” in line 7. There is antecedent basis for this limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation is being considered as -- a secondary low pressure input port --.
Claim 18 recites “the output port” in line 7. There is antecedent basis for this limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation is being considered as – an outport port --.
Claim 18 calls for the limitation “at least one refrigeration evaporator” in line 23 which is confusing as it is unclear how it relates to the previous recitation of “a refrigerating evaporator” above in line 16 of same claim.
Further, claim limitations “refrigeration expansion device” (in claims 8 and 18) invokes 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.
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
(b) 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 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 (0) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st and 2nd paragraphs, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 2-9 and 11-19 are also objected to as being dependent upon allowable base claims 1 and 10.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1 and 10 include an explicit recitation of a controller coupled to each of the plurality of ejectors, the controller adapted to: generate a plurality of maps based on a set of predefined conditions, each of the plurality of maps associated with a corresponding temperature of a heat rejecting heat exchanger; identify a first map from the plurality of maps associated with a first temperature of the heat rejecting heat exchanger and an input signal indicative of a flow rate of a refrigerant fluid through the first ejector; and adjust opening percentages of the plurality of ejectors based on the identified first map;
A method for controlling a plurality of ejectors in an ejector refrigeration circuit, the method comprising: generating, via a controller, a plurality of maps based on a set of predefined conditions, each of the plurality of maps associated with a corresponding temperature of a heat rejecting heat exchanger; identifying, via the controller, a first map from the plurality of maps associated with a first temperature of the heat rejecting heat exchanger and an input signal indicative of a flow rate of a refrigerant fluid through the first ejector; and adjusting, via the controller, opening percentages of the plurality of ejectors based on the identified first map.
The closest prior art is ZHU et al. (US 2022/0299239 A1) which discloses a system (an ejector and a refrigeration system) for controlling a plurality of ejectors (a plurality of ejectors 110a, 110b, 110c) in an ejector refrigeration circuit (Fig. 2), the system comprising: a plurality of ejectors (110a, 110b, 110c), each of the plurality of ejectors (941, 942, 943) having a primary high pressure input port (a high-pressure fluid inlet 11), a secondary low pressure input port (a suction fluid inlet 21), and an output port (a mixed fluid outlet 84).
References: US 20040255611 A1, US 20170159977 A1, EP 3708852 A1. Also, see the attached PTO 892 for additional related references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights