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 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.
Claim 1-12 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 1 recites the limitations “second on-board electrical system” and “first on-board 12-volt electrical system,” which as recited present several issues of indefiniteness. First, the scope of the two systems is recited differently, rendering it unclear whether the “second on-board electrical system” is intended to also be 12-volt or not. Second, the “first on-board 12-volt electrical system” is presented as simply an alternative within the Markush grouping “at least one of a fault with a first on-board 12-volt electrical system or a faut with a bus.” As such, the “first on-board 12-volt electrical system” is not actually required in order to read on the claim, thus rendering the previously recited “second” on-board electrical system indefinite. Finally, the fact that the “second” electrical system is recited before the “first” electrical system adds further confusion on top of the other issues, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim further unclear.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected since they either depend from or incorporated the subject matter of base claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “an electromotive refrigerant compressor.” However, claim 7 incorporates the subject matter of claim 1, which also recites “an electromotive refrigerant compressor.” As written, it is unclear whether these are supposed to be the same or different compressors.
Similarly, claim 8 recites “an electromotive refrigerant compressor.” However, claim 8 incorporates the subject matter of claim 1, which also recites “an electromotive refrigerant compressor.” As written, it is unclear whether these are supposed to be the same or different compressors.
Also regarding claim 8, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further regarding claim 8, the claim recites “at least one of configured to carry out the method or operating according to….” It is unclear what the difference between “carry out the method” and “operating according to” is, rendering the intended metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously applied art rejection based on Blatchley et al. in view of Sandelman et al. (see discussion of allowable subject matter below. Applicant’s amendment changing “control unit” to “controller” overcomes the previously applied interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previously applied rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding the limitation “lower”. However, that amendment introduced new issues of indefiniteness that have been set forth above. Applicant has failed to acknowledge or address the rejections of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Accordingly, those rejections have been maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Blatchley et al. in view of Sandelman et al. as applied in the previous office action, constitute the closest prior art. The newly cited Schulaks provides alternatively related art.
As per independent claim 1, the Examiner accepts Applicant’s arguments that the fault of Blatchley et al. is related to a difference between the actual and set temperature, and is not a fault with a first on-board 12-volt electrical system of a fault with a bus for transmitting a control signal.
In addition, Schulaks discloses a redundant refrigeration system wherein a compressor is kept operating in the instance of a failure of a bus system (para. 0042; etc.). However, Schulaks is directed to sensor redundancies rather than providing a supply voltage to the motor of the compressor from a second on-board electrical system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights