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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of informalities, wherein appropriate correction is required:
In claim 1:
The capitalized recitation of “UNIFIED COOLING UNIT WITH MODULAR STRUCTURE” should be amended to –A unified cooling unit with modular structure—, for grammatical purposes and to comply with the claim formatting requirements, per MPEP § 608.01 (m).
The claim has multiple periods, rather than a single one at the end. The claim should be reformatted to eliminate all periods except the last one.
In claim 2: the capitalized recitation of “UNIFIED COOLING UNIT WITH MODULAR STRUCTURE” should be amended to “The unified cooling unit with modular structure”, for grammatical purposes and to comply with the claim formatting requirements, per MPEP § 608.01 (m).
In claim 3: the capitalized recitation of “UNIFIED COOLING UNIT WITH MODULAR STRUCTURE” should be amended to “The unified cooling unit with modular structure”, for grammatical purposes and to comply with the claim formatting requirements, per MPEP § 608.01 (m).
In claim 4: the capitalized recitation of “UNIFIED COOLING UNIT WITH MODULAR STRUCTURE” should be amended to “The unified cooling unit with modular structure”, for grammatical purposes and to comply with the claim formatting requirements, per MPEP § 608.01 (m).
In claim 5: the capitalized recitation of “UNIFIED COOLING UNIT WITH MODULAR STRUCTURE” should be amended to “The unified cooling unit with modular structure”, for grammatical purposes and to comply with the claim formatting requirements, per MPEP § 608.01 (m).
In claim 6: the capitalized recitation of “UNIFIED COOLING UNIT WITH MODULAR STRUCTURE” should be amended to “The unified cooling unit with modular structure”, for grammatical purposes and to comply with the claim formatting requirements, per MPEP § 608.01 (m).
In claim 7: the capitalized recitation of “UNIFIED COOLING UNIT WITH MODULAR STRUCTURE” should be amended to “The unified cooling unit with modular structure”, for grammatical purposes and to comply with the claim formatting requirements, per MPEP § 608.01 (m).
In claim 8: the capitalized recitation of “UNIFIED COOLING UNIT WITH MODULAR STRUCTURE” should be amended to “The unified cooling unit with modular structure”, for grammatical purposes and to comply with the claim formatting requirements, per MPEP § 608.01 (m).
In claim 9: the capitalized recitation of “UNIFIED COOLING UNIT WITH MODULAR STRUCTURE” should be amended to “The unified cooling unit with modular structure”, for grammatical purposes and to comply with the claim formatting requirements, per MPEP § 608.01 (m).
In claim 10: the capitalized recitation of “UNIFIED COOLING UNIT WITH MODULAR STRUCTURE” should be amended to “The unified cooling unit with modular structure”, for grammatical purposes and to comply with the claim formatting requirements, per MPEP § 608.01 (m).
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 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:
“removal means” (in claim 1).
The aforementioned limitation(s) meet the three prong test, as follows:
The limitation explicitly recites “means”.
The limitation is coupled with functional language (e.g., for “removal”).
There are no structures recited in the limitation.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The specification appears to disclose the “removal means” as comprising screws, complementary geometries or any other method.1
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims seem generally narrative and incongruent with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and contain numerous grammatical and idiomatic errors. Applicant is respectfully requested to review the claims in their entirety for any additional issues that may have not been listed hereinbelow.
Claim 1 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “suitable for”, twice (in the preamble and line 3), which renders the scope of the claim unclear. The term “suitable” may be construed as “able”, “qualified” or “adapted to a use or purpose”,2 which may not necessarily require the actual claimed structural configurations. For instance, it is unclear whether “suitable for installation in a vehicle” actually requires the structure to be installed in a vehicle for anticipation or infringement, or if the mere capability thereof would suffice. Likewise, it is unclear whether “suitable for housing the batteries […]” actually requires the claimed items being housed, or the mere capability thereof. For examination purposes, the term “suitable” will be omitted.
The claim recites “the wall” (in line 2), without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what wall is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a wall—.
The claim recites “of its box” (in line 2), without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what box of what structure is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –of a box—.
The claim recites “the cabin” (in line 2), without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what cabin is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a cabin—.
The claim recites “the batteries” (in line 3), without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what batteries are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –batteries—.
The claim recites “the condenser” (in line 3), without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what condenser is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a condenser—.
The claim recites “the compressor” (in line 3), without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what compressor is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a compressor—.
The claim recites “the electronic management elements of the compressor” (in lines 3-4), without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what elements are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –electronic management elements of the compressor —.
The claim recites “the electric management elements of the batteries” (in lines 4-5), without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what elements are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –electric management elements of the batteries —.
The claim recites “characterized in that this structure also houses all the connections between all the aforementioned elements, all of which are arranged in an accessible manner. The structure comprises […]” (in lines 5-7), without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what “this structure” is referring to. Also, recitation of “all the connections between all the aforementioned elements”, etc., makes unclear what exactly is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the entire recitation will be construed as –characterized in that the unified cooling unit comprises —.
The claim recites “a transverse partition (13). On the sides of this central module,” without proper antecedent basis. Moreover, the period is improper, as stated in the Claim Objections, supra. For examination purposes, the quoted recitation will be construed as –a transverse partition,—.
The claim recites that “there is a module with a left recess (9) and a module with a right recess (7). All recesses have windows to the exterior, and the various modules are joined together by removable means. This structure is enclosed by a casing with at least one accessible area for each recess and includes connections with at least one evaporator (15).”, presenting a number of clarity issues. For examination purposes, the quoted limitation will be construed as –a left recess (9), a right recess (7), wherein each one of the rear recess (3), the front recess (5), the left recess (9) and the right recess (7) comprise a window to an exterior, and the unified cooling unit includes a connection with at least one evaporator (15) and is enclosed by a casing with at least one accessible area for each recess.—
Claim 2 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the electronic elements of the compressor management”, without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the electronic management elements of the compressor—.
The claim recites “the electrical elements of the battery management”, without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the electric management elements of the battery—.
Claim 4 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the vehicle housing”, without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation of “arranged in the vehicle housing” will be construed as –housed in the vehicle—.
Claim 5 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the structure”, without explicit antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the unified cooling unit—.
The claim recites “each of the modules is in turn […]”, which renders the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes¸ the recitation will be construed as –the central module is in turn—.
Claim 6 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the left opening (9)”, without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the left recess—.
The claim recites “the central partition (13)” without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will instead be construed as –the transverse partition (13)—.
Claim 7 contains the following issues:
The claim recites that “the central module (16) includes an open front window”, wherein it is unclear if said window is in addition to the window(s) recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, the window will be construed as being the same.
Claim 9 contains the following issues:
The claim recites that “it”, wherein it is unclear what structure “it” pertains to. For examination purposes, the recitation of “characterized in that it also includes” will be construed as –further comprising—.
Claim 10 contains the following issues:
The claim recites that “it”, wherein it is unclear what structure “it” pertains to. For examination purposes, the entire body of the claim will be construed as –further comprising an external connection to a control interface in the cabin—.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Sigety et al. (US 20170268814 A1), herein Sigety.
As per claim 1, Sigety discloses a unified cooling unit (e.g., 600, etc.) with modular structure (1000 in at least fig. 7) suitable for installation in a vehicle (evident from the wheels shown in figs. 7, 11, etc.), attached to a wall of a box in a chest (structure below 5006) over a cabin (evident from at least fig. 15), comprising a structure for housing batteries (inside or part of 350; see at least ¶ 94), a condenser (600b; see at least ¶ 102), a compressor (as part of the compression type system; see at least ¶ 65), electronic management elements of the compressor (e.g., see at least fig. 2), electrical management elements of the batteries (350, per se), and characterized in that the unified cooling unit comprises a central module (100) with a rear recess (see A arrow in fig. 3B), a front recess (see B arrow in fig. 3A), and a transverse partition (e.g., one of 122), a left recess (any space to the left of 200, 300, 400, etc.; see fig. 7), a right recess (any space to the right of 200, 300, 400, etc.; see fig. 7), wherein each one of the rear recess (by A arrow in fig. 3B), the front recess (by B arrow in fig. 3A), the left recess (left of 200, etc.) and the right recess (right of 200, etc.) comprise a window to an exterior (see open spaces in at least fig. 7), and the unified cooling unit includes a connection with at least one evaporator (described as “expansion coils” in ¶ 65) and is enclosed by a casing with at least one accessible area for each recess (see at least fig. 7).
As per claim 2, Sigety discloses that the batteries (of 350) are arranged in the rear recess (see fig. 9), the condenser (of 600) in the front recess (of B arrows), the compressor (described in ¶ 65) and the electronic management elements of the compressor in the right recess (see fig. 8) and the electrical management elements of battery management (350, per se) in the left recess (see at least fig. 7).
As per claim 3, Sigety discloses that the casing comprises removable window closing panels (e.g. the other 122s).
As per claim 4, Sigety discloses that the at least one evaporator (the “expansion coils”) is arranged in the vehicle housing (evident from ¶ 65).
As per claim 5, Sigety discloses that the unified cooling unit is in the form of a quadrangular prism and the central module is in turn in the form of a quadrangular prism (see at least fig. 7).
As per claim 6, Sigety discloses that the left opening (left of 200, etc.) is delimited by a frame (see frame of 1000) connected to the central partition (see fig. 7).
As per claim 7, Sigety discloses that the central module (100) includes an open front window (see figs. 3A-3B).
As per claim 9, Sigety discloses that it also includes an external connection for recharging the batteries (e.g., via the direct wired connection described in ¶ 94).
As per claim 10, Sigety discloses that it also includes an external connection to the control interface in the cabin (see at least ¶ 46).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigety in view of Evans et al. (US 20070199338 A1), herein Evans.
As per claim 8, Sigety may not appear to explicitly disclose that the compressor is of variable speed and variable voltage.
On the other hand, Evans, directed to variable speed control, discloses a compressor of variable speed and variable voltage (see at least ¶ 20).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.3
As per (1),Evans teaches that varying the voltage of the compressor serves to vary the speed thereof, allowing the compressor to be protected from experiencing rapidly changing conditions due to an increase or decrease in thermal requirements (¶ 20). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Evans has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the compressor controls, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Sigety. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both references are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. cooling systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Sigety may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Evans, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Sigety by virtue of suggesting protective compressor control for varying thermal load conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Sigety and to have modified them with the teachings of Evans, by having compressor be of variable speed and variable voltage, in order to properly protect and control it based on thermal load conditions, as similarly suggested by Evans, without yielding unpredictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jianying C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See at least ¶ 35 of the printed publication: US 20250164173 A1.
2 Definitions according to the Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
3 See MPEP § 2143.
Prosecution Insights