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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of the invention of Group I, readable on claims 1 through 7, in the reply filed on May 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8 through 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected inventions of Group II and of Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 27, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the third heat exchanger mounted ON an air conditioner (emphasis added) as recited in base claim 1 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. Note that while the drawings schematically show an air conditioning case C of an air conditioner and plural heat exchangers within the case C, the drawings do not specifically show any one of the heat exchangers as being mounted ON an air conditioner as recited by claim 1 and by all claims depending therefrom. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because, unlike Figure 1, Figures 7 through 9 do not show the vapor injection module 300, thus causing a lack of consistency among the drawings showing the entire inventive vehicle heat management device. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not avoid legal phraseology normally reserved for claims (i.e., “comprising” in the first sentence and “means” in the second sentence) and because does not avoid referring to the purported merits and speculative uses of the inventive device (i.e., in the last sentence). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “heat exchanger medium” (paragraph [17] and paragraph [26]) should be replaced with “heat exchange medium” for improved grammatical and/or idiomatic correctness. Additionally, there are inconsistencies in the disclosure relating to whether the third heat exchanger is mounted on or in an air conditioner. More specifically, paragraphs [17] and [26] state that the third heat exchanger is mounted on an air conditioner, whereas paragraph [90] states that third heat exchanger is mounted in an air conditioner. The former statements are contradictory to the latter one, thus creating a lack of clarity in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 through 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the compressed refrigerant” [claim 1, line 3] should be replaced with “compressed refrigerant” for improved clarity and readability; and, “heat exchanger medium” [claim 1, line 4] should be replaced with “heat exchange medium” for improved grammatical and/or idiomatic correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “vapor injection module”. The term “module” is a generic placeholder or a nonce term, whereas “vapor expansion” constitutes functional language.
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.
Note that the above claim interpretation comments do NOT constitute objections or rejections of any sort.
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 through 7 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. While base claim 1 recites “a third heat exchanger mounted on an air conditioner” (emphasis added) in line 6 of the claim, the originally filed disclosure does not provide clear and consistent support for these limitations as claimed. In particular, there are inconsistencies in the specification as to whether the third heat exchanger is mounted on or in an air conditioner. While paragraphs [17] and [26] state that the third heat exchanger is mounted on an air conditioner as claimed, paragraph [90] states that third heat exchanger is mounted in an air conditioner (i.e., with the latter configuration also being supported by the originally filed drawings). The written description requirement for the claims is not met at least due to the lack of consistency in the disclosure with regard to the location of the third heat exchanger relative to the air conditioner.
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 through 7 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the limitation “the compressed refrigerant” [claim 1, line 3]. Note that, while the term “refrigerant” appears earlier in the claim, it fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation “the compressed refrigerant” because the earlier recitation of the term “refrigerant” is merely part of an intended use limitation in the claim and compressed refrigerant is not in any way previously positively recited in the claim. It is recommended that “the compressed refrigerant” be replaced with “compressed refrigerant” as recommended earlier in the instant Office action.
The limitation “another heat exchanger medium” [claim 1, line 4] further renders the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom because it is not clear whether this “another heat exchanger medium” is intended to recite that this heat exchanger medium is “another” medium relative to the previously recited refrigerant or whether one more heat exchanger medium (other than the previously recited refrigerant) was intended to have been previously recited by the claim. If the former is the intended scope of the claim, then it is recommended that “another heat exchanger medium” be replaced with “another heat exchange medium in addition to the refrigerant” or with “a heat exchange medium” or with “air” or similar, as appropriate.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a third heat exchanger mounted on an air conditioner” in line 6 of the claim, however the drawings and at least paragraph [90] of the specification only show support for the third heat exchanger or evaporator 400 being in an air conditioner and not specifically on it, whereas paragraphs [17] and [26] of the specification support the limitations as written. This discrepancy in the disclosure and the claims renders indefinite the intended metes and bounds of protection sought by claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom.
Base claim 1 recites the limitations “wherein the vapor injection module includes a plurality of expansion means” in lines 10-11 of the claim. Claim 2 which depends from claim 1 recites the limitations “wherein the vapor injection module includes a first expansion means group for heating and a second expansion means group for cooling” in lines 2-3 of the claim. However, as claimed, it is not at all clear whether the first expansion means group and the second expansion means group are intended to be encompassed by or in addition to the plurality of expansion means as previously recited in base claim 1, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by claims 1 and 2 and by all claims depending therefrom. If it is applicant’s intention to recite that the first expansion means group and the second expansion means group are encompassed by the “plurality of expansion means” as previously recited in base claim 1, then it is recommended that the limitations “wherein the vapor injection module includes a first expansion means group for heating and a second expansion means group for cooling” be replaced with the limitations “wherein the plurality of expansion means includes a first expansion means group for heating and a second expansion means group for cooling” for improved clarity. If, however, it is applicant’s intention to recite that the first expansion means group and the second expansion means group are in addition to the “plurality of expansion means” as previously recited in base claim 1, then it is recommended that the limitations “wherein the vapor injection module includes a first expansion means group for heating and a second expansion means group for cooling” be replaced with the limitations “wherein the vapor injection module includes a first expansion means group for heating and a second expansion means group for cooling in addition to the plurality of expansion means” for improved clarity.
Any claim not specifically cited is rejected at least as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
(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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanon Systems (KR 20210126361 A; made of record via IDS).
With regard to claim 1 of the instant application, Hanon Systems (i.e., see figures) discloses a vehicle heat management device comprising: a compressor 110 configured to compress and circulate refrigerant; a first heat exchanger or condenser 120 into which the compressed refrigerant is introduced to exchange heat with another heat exchanger medium (i.e., air); a second or outdoor heat exchanger 140 configured to exchange heat with air outside a vehicle interior; a third heat exchanger or evaporator 150 mounted on/in an air conditioner to exchange heat with air discharged to the vehicle interior at 190; and a vapor injection module 130 capable of allowing gaseous refrigerant to flow into the compressor 110, wherein the vapor injection module 130 includes a plurality of expansion means 131, 135, 136 and one gas-liquid separator 133, in a cooling mode, refrigerant passing through the second or outdoor heat exchanger 140 flows into the vapor injection module 130, and in a heating mode, refrigerant passing through the first heat exchanger or condenser 120 flows into the vapor injection module 130.
With regard to claim 2 of the instant application, Hanon Systems further discloses the vehicle heat management device of claim 1, wherein the vapor injection module 130 includes a first expansion means group including at least expansion valve 131 for heating and a second expansion means group including at least expansion valve 136 for cooling, an outlet of the first heat exchanger or condenser 120 is connected to the first expansion means group, and an outlet of the second or outdoor heat exchanger 140 is connected to the second expansion means group as shown in the figures.
The reference thus reads on the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 3 through 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not show nor reasonably suggest the particular combinations of elements and functions associated therewith as recited in claims 3 through 7. This finding of allowable subject matter is consistent with the corresponding findings related to claims 3 through 7 having novelty and an inventive step over the prior art as noted in the International Search Report for the corresponding PCT application as filed on August 22, 2024 in the instant application.
Conclusion
The additional related and/or prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights