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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the air replenishment port as recited in claim 2 and all claims depending therefrom must be shown (or clearly identified in the drawings using a reference character if already shown in the drawings) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 does not avoid phrases which can be implied (i.e., “The present invention provides” should be deleted since the first sentence of an abstract need not be a complete sentence), it does not avoid legal phraseology (i.e., “comprising” should be replace with “including” or similar), and because it contains grammatical and/or idiomatic informalities (i.e., “connected through pipelines” should be replaced with “connected via piping” or “connected via pipes” or similar). 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 of the following informalities: “through pipelines” (paragraph [0005]) should be replaced with “via piping” or “via pipes” in order to remove an idiomatic and/or grammatical informality; and, “on the respective pipelines” (paragraph [0021]) should be replaced with “on the respective piping” or “on the respective pipes” in order to remove an idiomatic and/or grammatical informality; and, Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Enhanced Vapor Injection” compressor (i.e., see paragraph [0012]), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections0
Claims 1 through 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: ”connected through pipelines” [claim 1, line 5] should be replaced with “connected via pipes” or “connected via piping” to avoid grammatical and/or idiomatic informalities; and, “is communicated to” [claim 2, line 6] should be replace with “communicates with” in order to correct a grammatical and/or idiomatic informality. 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, for example: “first throttling element”, “second throttling element”, “economizer assembly”, and “throttling device”, all appearing throughout the claims.
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.
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 through 10 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 contain grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examples of some of these idiomatic and grammatical informalities have been noted in greater detail above in the objections to the abstract, specification, and claims. Additionally, base claim 1 recites the limitation “at the same time” in each of lines 11 and 15 (i.e., it being unclear whether the limitation “at the same time” is intended to mean “simultaneously” or to mean “during the same time period” or to more simply mean “additionally”), whereas each of dependent claims 4 through 7 recite one or two occurrences of the limitation “instructs to” (i.e., which requires an object) without clearly indicating which element is given the instructions as claimed and also recite the limitation “plays a throttling role” (i.e., it being unclear which additional features if any are necessitated by reciting that a “throttling element plays a throttling role” beyond the inherent throttling role of any throttling element), thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claims and any claims depending therefrom.
With regard to claim 3 as written, it is not clear which elements are necessarily included and which ones are necessarily excluded by the limitations “that communicates with the first solenoid valve, the second solenoid valve, the first throttling element, the second throttling element, or any combinations thereof”, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom. It is not clear, for example, whether the aforementioned limitations require communication with at least one element selected from the group consisting of the first solenoid valve, the second solenoid valve, the first throttling element, the second throttling element, and any combinations thereof OR to require communication with either the group consisting of all of the first solenoid valve, the second solenoid valve, the first throttling element, and the second throttling element or with at least one combination selected from the group consisting of various combination of the aforementioned valves and throttling elements. It is recommended that the aforementioned limitations be more clearly recited as part of a proper Markush limitation, for example.
Each of claims 4 through 7 recites the limitation "the refrigerant of the air conditioning system", but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, claim 8 contains the trademark/trade name “Enhanced Vapor Injection” or EVI compressor. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the claimed compressor and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is at least rejected as being dependent on a rejected 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.
(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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lv et al., Publication No. US 2020/0240680 A1 (made of record via IDS).
Lv et al. (i.e., especially Figures 1, 3A through 3D, 5A and 5B) discloses an air conditioning system or heat pump comprising: a compressor 101, a four-way valve 120, a first heat exchanger 104, a second heat exchanger 102, a third heat exchanger 103, a first throttling element 113.1 and a second throttling element 113.2 with a shut-off function (i.e., openable and closeable; see at least paragraph [0056]), a reservoir or tank 110, a first solenoid valve (i.e., one valve out of valves 118.1, 118.2, 118.3; see paragraph [0049]), a second solenoid valve (i.e., another valve out of valves 118.1, 118.2, 118.3; see paragraph [0049]), and a check valve (i.e., one of valve 115.1 and 115.2, each of which may be a one-way/check valve; see at least paragraph [0048]) connected through pipelines/pipes, wherein the four-way valve 120 has a first port 120.3 for communicating with an exhaust port 105 of the compressor 101, a second port 120.2 for communicating with a first end of the first heat exchanger 104 at port 116.1 of the first heat exchanger 104, a third port 120.4 for communicating with a first end of the second heat exchanger 102 at port 121.1 of the second heat exchanger 102, and a fourth port 120.1 for communicating with a second end of the third heat exchanger 103 at port 123.1 of the third heat exchanger 103; wherein a second end of the first heat exchanger 104 is connected to a first end of the reservoir 110 through the second solenoid valve 118.1, and at the same time the second end at port 116.2 of the first heat exchanger 104 is connected to the first end of the reservoir 110 through the check valve 115.1; a second end of the second heat exchanger 102 is connected to a second end of the reservoir 110 through the second throttling element 113.2; a first end of the third heat exchanger 103 is connected to the first end of the reservoir 110 through the first solenoid valve 118.3, and at the same time the first end of the third heat exchanger 103 is connected to the second end of the reservoir 110 through the first throttling element 113.1, and the second end of the third heat exchanger 103 is connected to a suction port 106 of the compressor 101 at least indirectly via port 123.2, all connections being at least as broadly interpreted as required for a pending claim.
The reference thus reads on the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 2 through 10 would be allowable if rewritten, without patentably significant broadening, to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While the closest prior art of record (i.e., Lv et al. as applied earlier in the instant Office action) discloses the inventive air conditioning system of claim 1 of the instant application essentially as claimed (at least as broadly interpreted for pending claims) and also discloses an economizer 634 (i.e., in Figure 6), neither Lv et al. nor the remaining prior art of record discloses an economizer assembly provided between the second throttling element and the second end of the reservoir, and comprising an intermediate heat exchanger and a throttling bypass where the throttling bypass is provided with a throttling device and the where the intermediate heat exchanger is additionally in communication with an air replenishment port of the compressor, all as recited in combination in dependent claim 2 of the instant application. All of the remaining claims (i.e., claims 3 through 10) depend from claim 2 of the instant application and thus contain the same allowable subject matter as claim 2.
Conclusion
The additional prior and/or related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763