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:
“control device” in claim 1.
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 1-8 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 limitation "an accumulator to supply a refrigerant to the condenser in this order". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is not clear from the description how the accumulator supplies the refrigerant to the condenser if is as the “in this order” that is being claimed it would supply the refrigerant to the compressor. Furthermore, the priority documents claim that the supply is to the compressor and not the condenser. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a refrigerant". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is not clear how does the continuous mentioned of “a refrigerant” relate to the previous mentioned “a refrigerant”. The examiner recommends to write “the refrigerant” after the first claimed refrigerant.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a refrigerant". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is not clear how does the continuous mentioned of “a refrigerant” relate to the previous mentioned “a refrigerant”. The examiner recommends to write “the refrigerant” after the first claimed refrigerant.
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) 1-2, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (WO 2021255921), hereinafter referred to as Mori, in view of Sadai (US 20220186965), hereinafter referred to as Sadai. EP4170265B1 is used for translation purposes.
Re claim 1 and 7, Mori teaches a refrigeration cycle device comprising:
a refrigerant circuit (e.g. 10) to make a refrigerant flow in a compressor (e.g. 3) to compress a refrigerant, a condenser (e.g. 4), an expansion valve (e.g. 5) to regulate a flow rate of a refrigerant, an evaporator (e.g. 8),
a control device (e.g. 2) to control the expansion valve,
wherein the control device includes:
a supercooling level controller (e.g. 102) to calculate a first opening degree of the expansion valve such that a supercooling level of a refrigerant follows a target value and to output a calculation result (e.g. ¶ 26, “The second controller 102 is a position-type PID controller that outputs a provisional opening degree (control operation value) of the upstream expansion valve 5 which causes the degree of subcooling (second control value) to follow a target degree of subcooling (second target control value)”):
a discharge temperature controller (e.g. 101) to calculate a second opening degree of the expansion valve such that temperature of a refrigerant discharged from the compressor follows a predetermined upper limit and to output a calculation result (e.g. ¶ 25, “The first controller 101 is a position-type proportional-integral-differential (PID) controller that outputs an opening degree (control operation value) of the downstream expansion valve 7 which causes a discharge temperature (first control value) to follow a target discharge temperature (first target control value)”); and
a first maximum selector (e.g. 112) to output a maximum value out of the output of the supercooling level controller and the output of the discharge temperature controller (e.g. ¶ 33, “The adder 112 adds the correction value Suff(k+1) to the provisional opening degree Su_tmp(k+1) of the upstream expansion valve 5 to determine the opening degree Su(k+1) of the upstream expansion valve 5, and outputs the opening degree Su(k+1)”),
wherein the control device controls the expansion valve by using the value outputted from the first maximum selector (e.g. ¶ 33, “outputs the opening degree Su(k+1)”).
Mori does not teach the limitation of and an accumulator to supply a refrigerant to the condenser in this order.
Sadai teaches a refrigeration cycle device comprising: a refrigerant circuit (e.g. 10) to make a refrigerant flow in a compressor (e.g. 21) to compress a refrigerant, a condenser (e.g. 23), an expansion valve (e.g. 25) to regulate a flow rate of a refrigerant, an evaporator (e.g. 52), and an accumulator (e.g. 24) to supply a refrigerant to the condenser in this order.
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 Mori and integrated an accumulator to supply a refrigerant to the condenser in this order, as taught by Sadai, in order to store surplus refrigerant (see Sadai ¶ 125).
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, Mori, as modified, teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1. Mori further teaches the limitation of wherein the supercooling level controller is a first PI controller (e.g. ¶ 26, “The second controller 102 is a position-type PID controller”), the discharge temperature controller is a second PI controller (e.g. ¶ 25, “The first controller 101 is a position-type proportional-integral-differential (PID) controller”), and a parameter of each of the first PI controller and the second PI controller is calculated by using a result of system identification based on a step response (e.g. ¶ 25, “The PID controller is a controller that includes a proportional controller, an integral controller, and a differential controller. To the PID controller of the first controller 101, a deviation of a discharge temperature obtained from the discharge temperature sensor 11 from the target discharge temperature set in advance is input”).
Re claim 5, Mori, as modified, teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1. Mori further teaches the limitation of wherein the discharge temperature controller makes the temperature of the refrigerant discharged from the compressor follow a predetermined target value other than the upper limit (e.g. ¶ 25, “The PID controller is a controller that includes a proportional controller, an integral controller, and a differential controller. To the PID controller of the first controller 101, a deviation of a discharge temperature obtained from the discharge temperature sensor 11 from the target discharge temperature set in advance is input”).
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori, in view of Sadai, in view of Yuki (WO 2020016959), hereinafter referred to as Yuki. US 20210215385 is used for translation purposes.
Re claim 3 and 8, Mori, as modified, teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1 and 2. Mori, as modified, does not teach the limitation of each of the supercooling level controller and the discharge temperature controller has an anti-reset windup function, and integral values calculated by the supercooling level controller and the discharge temperature controller do not diverge. However, Yuki teaches a refrigeration cycle device comprising an anti-reset windup function, and integral values calculated by a first controller and a second controller do not diverge (e.g. ¶ 68, “may be the control method including upper and lower limits and anti-reset windup processing of an integrator in addition to the basic configuration of the above controls. Furthermore, in the case where the minimum value of the degree of subcooling does not need to be set, it is unnecessary to use the controller such as the PI controller, and it suffices that the equation “C.sub.pmax(k, i)=C.sub.pmax_c” is satisfied”). 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 Mori and integrated each of the supercooling level controller and the discharge temperature controller has an anti-reset windup function, and integral values calculated by the supercooling level controller and the discharge temperature controller do not diverge, as taught by Sadai, in order to improve stability of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6 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 ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-802).
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 2/19/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763