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 .
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:
expansion device in claim 1-20.
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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-13, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qu et al. (US ), hereinafter referred to as Qu.
Re claim 1 and 11, Qu teaches (Fig 3) a heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) system comprising:
a liquid refrigerant line (line from 115 to 120);
an expansion device (e.g. 145) having an inlet (e.g. 137) fluidly connecting to the liquid refrigerant line to receive a liquid refrigerant (implicit) from the liquid refrigerant line;
a liquid refrigerant control valve (e.g. 145) fluidly connecting the liquid refrigerant line and a connection point downstream of the expansion device (see Fig 3); and
a controller (e.g. 155) configured to:
monitor a pressure or a mode change in the system (e.g. ¶ 46, “For example, the valve may automatically open when a property reading is greater than a predetermined maximum property. The valve may automatically close when a property reading is less than a predetermined closing value for the property. In some implementations, the predetermined closing value may be less than the predetermined maximum value (e.g., the valve may open at a high pressure than the pressure at which the valve closes)”); and
activate the liquid refrigerant control valve to inject the liquid refrigerant into the connection point based on a result of the monitoring (e.g. ¶ 46, “For example, the valve may automatically open when a property reading is greater than a predetermined maximum property. The valve may automatically close when a property reading is less than a predetermined closing value for the property. In some implementations, the predetermined closing value may be less than the predetermined maximum value (e.g., the valve may open at a high pressure than the pressure at which the valve closes)”).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 2 and 12, Qu teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the controller is further configured to: monitor the pressure at a monitoring point between the expansion device and a compressor suction port (see Fig 3; from the suction port to the expansion valve); and determine whether the pressure is below a predetermined pressure level (e.g. ¶ 46, “For example, the valve may automatically open when a property reading is greater than a predetermined maximum property. The valve may automatically close when a property reading is less than a predetermined closing value for the property. In some implementations, the predetermined closing value may be less than the predetermined maximum value (e.g., the valve may open at a high pressure than the pressure at which the valve closes)”).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 3 and 13, Qu teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the controller is further configured to deactivate the liquid refrigerant control valve when the pressure is above a predetermined pressure level (e.g. ¶ 39, “For example, during use, if the pressure proximate the high pressure switch exceeds the predetermined maximum, then operation of the compressor may be restricted (e.g., the compressor may be shut off)”; the examiner notes that stopping the system inherently deactivates the valve as well).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 8 and 18, Qu teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the liquid refrigerant control valve has a predetermined orifice size (e.g. ¶ 37, “a controller 155 coupled to a valve 145 may control the openness of the valve to control the amount of refrigerant allowed to pass through the bypass line 140”).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 9 and 19, Qu teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, further comprising a condenser to deliver the liquid refrigerant to the liquid refrigerant line (e.g. ¶ 37, “a controller 155 coupled to a valve 145 may control the openness of the valve to control the amount of refrigerant allowed to pass through the bypass line 140”).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 10 and 20, Qu teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, further comprising a condenser (e.g. 115) to deliver the liquid refrigerant to the liquid refrigerant line (implicit).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20170102175), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Re claim 1 and 11, Chen teaches (Fig 3) a heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) system comprising:
a liquid refrigerant line (line from 240 to 220);
an expansion device (e.g. 250) having an inlet (e.g. inlet to 250) fluidly connecting to the liquid refrigerant line to receive a liquid refrigerant (implicit) from the liquid refrigerant line;
a liquid refrigerant control valve (e.g. 255/265) fluidly connecting the liquid refrigerant line and a connection point downstream of the expansion device (see Fig 3); and
a controller (e.g. 280) configured to:
monitor a pressure or a mode change in the system (e.g. ¶ 26, “A message is sent to open a valve in a bypass line when the pressure measurement is above a set value 440. A message is sent to close the valve when a predetermined event has occurred 450”); and
activate the liquid refrigerant control valve to inject the liquid refrigerant into the connection point based on a result of the monitoring (e.g. ¶ 26, “A message is sent to open a valve in a bypass line when the pressure measurement is above a set value 440. A message is sent to close the valve when a predetermined event has occurred 450”).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 4 and 14, Chen teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the controller is further configured to deactivate the liquid refrigerant control valve after an adjustable period of time (e.g. claim 17 and 20, “closing the bypass line when a predetermined event has occurred” … “wherein the predetermined event is a period of time”).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
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) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu.
Re claim 5 and 15, Qu teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11. Qu does not teach the limitation of wherein the controller is further configured to detect whether the system switches from a heating mode to a cooling mode. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that using a controller to determine when heating or cooling mode is switch to, for the purpose of applying proper control logic, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Qu and configured the controller to detect whether the system switches from a heating mode to a cooling mode, for the purpose of applying proper control logic.
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 6-7, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu, in view of Chammas et al. (US 20240200688), hereinafter referred to as Chammas.
Re claim 6-7 and 16-17, Qu teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11. Qu does not teach the limitation of further comprising a check valve connecting to the liquid refrigerant control valve; wherein the check valve and the liquid refrigerant control valve are assembled as a pipe kit and positioned on a liquid refrigerant injection line connecting the liquid refrigerant line and the connection point. However, Chammas teaches an HVAC system comprising a liquid refrigerant injection line (e.g. line from 33 to 31 passing through 22) having a liquid refrigerant control valve (e.g. 22) and a check valve (e.g. 23) bypassing an expansion valve (e.g. 7) positioned on a liquid refrigerant line (e.g. line from 33 to 31 passing through 7). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Qu and integrated a check valve connecting to the liquid refrigerant control valve; wherein the check valve and the liquid refrigerant control valve are positioned on a liquid refrigerant injection line connecting the liquid refrigerant line and the connection point, as taught by Chammas, in order to prevent unwanted directional flow. Qu, as modified, does not teach the limitation of the liquid refrigerant valve and the check valve assembled as a pipe kit. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that assembling two valves together in a pipe kit, for the purpose of reducing installation difficulty, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Qu, as modified, and configured the integrated the liquid refrigerant valve and the check valve assembled as a pipe kit.
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 1/20/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763