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: “refrigerant preheating unit,” “expansion unit,” and “control unit” used 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.
For the record:
“Refrigerant preheating unit” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure of reference numeral 180 as described in the specification and illustrated inf the figures.
“Expansion unit,” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure of reference numeral 130 as described in the specification and illustrated inf the figures.
No corresponding structure has been described for “control unit.” See corresponding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b), below.
Note further that the limitation “ice-removing refrigerant flow path unit” has NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since the term “flow path” is deemed to provide intrinsic structure.
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “control unit,” which has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth above. However, since the disclosure does not identify the corresponding structure for the limitation, as required under that statute, Applicant has failed to demonstrate full possession of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention at the effective filing date of the application. Claims 2-15 are also rejected since they either depend from or incorporate the subject matter of claim 1.
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 1-15 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.
Claim limitation “control unit” 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 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
(b) 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(o) and 2181.
In addition:
Claim 1 recites “a refrigerant preheating unit” at line 13 of the claim. However, the claim already recites “a refrigerant preheating unit” at line 1 of the claim. The recitation at line 13 should thus read “the refrigerant preheating unit.” Claims 2-15 are also rejected since they either depend from or incorporate the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the external environment" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the outside air" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the refrigerant flow path unit” in line 1 of the claim. However, earlier claims recite an “ice-removing refrigerant flow path unit.” It5 is unclear as written whether these are meant to connote the same thing. If they are meant to connote the same thing, the recitation in claim 5 should be amended to recite the full limitation in order to provide proper consistency.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2004/0188517 A1)) in view of Keller, Jr. et al. (US 5167491).
As per claim 1, Choi discloses an ice maker, comprising: a compressor 171 for compressing a refrigerant; a condenser 172 for condensing a refrigerant discharged from a discharge end of the compressor; an expansion unit 174 for expanding a refrigerant condensed in the condenser; an ice-making evaporator 173B for evaporating a refrigerant expanded in the expansion unit to make ice; a refrigerant flow path unit for guiding a refrigerant discharged from the compressor to a suction end of the compressor through the condenser, the expansion unit and the ice-making evaporator Fig. 3); an ice-removing refrigerant flow path unit for guiding a refrigerant discharged from the compressor to the ice-making evaporator (Fig. 3: flow path diverging from between the compressor and condenser and reconnecting upstream of evaporator 173B). Choi does not teach the ice maker comprising a refrigerant preheating unit for causing a refrigerant discharged from the compressor to be re-suctioned into the compressor before passing through the condenser; and a control unit for controlling the refrigerant preheating unit. Keller, Jr. et al. teach a refrigerant cycle comprising a refrigerant “preheating unit” (bypass line 22 with bypass valve 24 provides the same structure as Applicant’s pre-heating unit as interpreted above under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); note that even though Keller, Jr. et al. do not describe the bypass arrangement as a “preheating unit,” it constitutes the exact same structure) for causing a refrigerant discharged from the compressor to be re-suctioned into the compressor before passing through the condenser (Fig. 1; etc.); and a control unit 30 for controlling the refrigerant preheating unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to provide the bypass arrangement of Keller, Jr. et al. to the system of Choi for the same basic purpose of preventing reverse flow operation and minimizing energy loss during shutting down of the compressor (col. 2, lines 3-17; etc.).
As per claim 2, Choi does not teach wherein the refrigerant preheating unit comprises: a bypass flow path which is branched from a discharge end of the compressor and is connected to a suction end of the compressor; a bypass opening/closing valve for opening/closing the bypass flow path; and a sensor for measuring the temperature of the external environment. Keller, Jr. et al. teach wherein the refrigerant preheating unit comprises: a bypass flow path 22 which is branched from a discharge end of the compressor (at 13) and is connected to a suction end of the compressor (at 21); a bypass opening/closing valve 24 for opening/closing the bypass flow path; and a sensor for measuring the temperature of the external environment (considered an implicit feature of thermostat 40). Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to provide the bypass arrangement of Keller, Jr. et al. to the system of Choi for the same basic purpose of preventing reverse flow operation and minimizing energy loss during shutting down of the compressor (col. 2, lines 3-17; etc.).
As per claim 3, Choi does not teach wherein the sensor measures the temperature of the outside air or the temperature of purified water. Again, thermostat 40 of Keller, Jr. et al. controls the system according to air cooling demand (col. 2, lines 30-54; etc.), which implicitly involves a sensor to detect the temperature of air outside of the refrigeration cycle. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize such cooling demand to control a compressor bypass valve (again, see col. 2, lines 30-54 of Keller, Jr. et al.), wherein thermostat 40 is used to control valve 24, for the purposes of purpose of preventing reverse flow operation and minimizing energy loss during shutting down of the compressor (col. 2, lines 3-17; etc.), as already discussed.
As per claim 4, Choi discloses the system further comprising: a cold-water evaporator 173a for cooling purified water with a refrigerant expanded in the expansion unit (at 174a).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2004/0188517 A1)) in view of Keller, Jr. et al. (US 5167491), and further in view of JP2010025410A.
As per claim 5, Choi discloses wherein the refrigerant flow path unit comprises: an ice-making refrigerant flow path (path that includes valve 174b) for guiding a refrigerant that has passed through the condenser 172 to the ice-making evaporator 173b; a cold-water refrigerant flow path (path that includes valve 174a) for guiding a refrigerant that has passed through the condenser to the cold-water evaporator 173a. Choi does not teach a multi-directional valve for guiding a refrigerant that has passed through the condenser to at least any one of the ice-making refrigerant flow path and the cold- water refrigerant flow path. JP2010025410A teaches a refrigeration system comprising ice-making evaporator 18 and cold water evaporator 20, wherein flow to the respective evaporators are controlled by valves 17 and 19 (Fig. 1; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide control valves on the evaporator flow paths of Choi for the same purpose of controlling refrigerant flow, and thus the degree of cooling, at each evaporator. Further, it would have been a simple mechanical expedient to replace the two valves taught by JP2010025410A with a single multi-directional flow valve as simply an alternative commonly-known valving arrangement for controlling flow to two alternate flow paths.
As per claim 6, Choi discloses wherein the expansion unit comprises: an ice-making expansion valve 174b which is provided on the ice-making refrigerant flow path and expands a refrigerant directed to the ice-making evaporator 173b; and a cold-water expansion valve 174a which is provided on the cold-water refrigerant flow path and expands a refrigerant directed to the cold-water evaporator 173a (Fig. 3; etc.).
As per claim 7, Choi does not teach wherein the ice-removing refrigerant flow path unit is provided to branch from the multi-directional valve and guides a refrigerant to the ice-making evaporator. Again, the use of multi-flow valves is a common mechanical expedient for controlling flow to alternate flow paths. In using a multi-directional valve such as that discussed regarding claim 5 (from which claim 7 depends), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize the muti-flow valve to also control flow to the ice-removing refrigerant flow path of Choi (see details of that flow path discussed above regarding claim 1), since that flow path is simply a further alternative refrigerant flow to the ice-making evaporators, and further since adding an additional alternative flow path to a multi-way valve is another simple mechanical expedient well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art involving simply adding an additional outflow port.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) 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:
As per claim 8 (and claim 10 which depends therefrom), there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the system of Choi wherein before ice is made in the ice-making evaporator, if the idle time of the compressor is greater than a preset time, and the temperature of the external environment measured by the sensor is below a preset temperature, the control unit opens the bypass opening/closing valve for a set period of time to control a refrigerant discharged from the compressor to circulate to a suction end of the compressor through the bypass flow path.
As per claim 9, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the system of Choi wherein when ice is being made or ice making is completed in the ice-making evaporator, if the temperature of the external environment measured by the sensor is below a preset temperature, the control unit opens the bypass opening/closing valve for a set period of time to control a refrigerant discharged from the compressor to circulate to a suction end of the compressor through the bypass flow path.
As per claim 11 (and claims 12-15 which depend therefrom),. there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the system of Choi to perform the method comprising: an environmental temperature measuring step for measuring the temperature of an outside air environment; a low-temperature environment determining step for determining whether the temperature measured in the environmental temperature measuring step is lower than a preset temperature; a preheating time calculating step for calculating a refrigerant preheating time at a corresponding temperature when the environmental temperature determined in the low-temperature environment determining step is a low-temperature environment that is lower than a preset temperature; and a refrigerant preheating step for circulating a refrigerant through the bypass flow path of a refrigerant preheating unit through the compressor during the time calculated in the preheating time calculating step.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Broadbent et al. (US 2016/0334157 A1) teach an ice maker refrigeration cycle comprising defrost line 28a.
Lifson et al. (US 7201008 B2) teach a refrigeration cycle with compressor bypass line 34.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763