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 .
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 09/06/2024. Claims 17-32 are pending in this application. Claim 1-16 have been cancelled.
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:
the limitation “expansion means” in claim 17 includes a generic/nonce term “means” coupled with function “expansion” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “expansion means” can be implemented in various ways, such as “an expansion valve” see figure 1. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof; and
the limitation “control means” in claim 17 includes a generic/nonce term “means” coupled with function “control” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “control means” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a controller” see figure 1. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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 17-21, 24-26 and 28-31 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 17 recites the limitation "said circuit" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said heat exchange circuit”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said regenerative exchanger" in lines 13-14 and 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one regenerative exchanger”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said circuit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said heat exchange circuit”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said regenerative exchanger" in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one regenerative exchanger”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said regenerative exchanger" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one regenerative exchanger”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "said liquid line" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one liquid line”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "said liquid line" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one liquid line”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "said regenerative exchanger" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one regenerative exchanger”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "said regenerative exchanger" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one regenerative exchanger”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "said circuit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said heat exchange circuit”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "said steam line" in lines 4, 6 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one steam line”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "said liquid line" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one liquid line”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "said regenerative exchanger". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one regenerative exchanger”.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "said steam line" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one steam line”.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "said regenerative exchanger" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one regenerative exchanger”.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "said adjustable expansion valve" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one adjustable expansion valve”.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "said regenerative exchanger" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one regenerative exchanger”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "said adjustable expansion valve" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one adjustable expansion valve”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "said second adjustable valve" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one second adjustable valve”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "said regenerative exchanger" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one regenerative exchanger”.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the type” in line 1 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what type of heat exchanger apparatus refers to. Further clarification for the limitation is required.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "said regenerative exchanger" in lines 11-14 and 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one regenerative exchanger”.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "said regenerative exchanger" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “said at least one regenerative exchanger”.
Claims 22-23, 27 and 32 are rejected by their virtual dependencies of claims 17 and 30.
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.
Claim(s) 17-23 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeno et al. (EP3351870A1, cited in the IDS) in view of Tao et al. (CN115574486A).
Regarding claim 17, Maeno discloses a heat exchange apparatus comprising:
a heat exchange circuit (the circuit which associated with heat exchanger 15) which is passed through by a heat exchange fluid and is provided with an evaporator (17) which is connected in output, by way of the interposition of a compressor (10A or 10B), to a condenser (11), which is connected in output, by way of the interposition of expansion means (16’), to said evaporator (17), between said evaporator (17) and said condenser (11) there being at least one regenerative exchanger (15) for an exchange of heat between a vapor-phase exchange fluid that exits from said evaporator (17) and a liquid-phase exchange fluid that exits from said condenser (11; see figures 1-2), and further comprising, between an outlet of said condenser (11) and an inlet of said evaporator (17), adjustment valve means (14 and 16’) for a flow of said exchange fluid (see figures 1-2), sensor means (31-34) being provided which are adapted to measure at least one thermodynamic parameter (temperature) of said exchange fluid at preset points of said circuit (see figures 1-2) and control means (100) being provided which are connected to said sensor means (31-34) and are configured to calculate, using measurements (refrigerant temperatures) supplied by said sensor means (31-34), an instantaneous efficiency of said regenerative exchanger (15; see figure 11).
However, Kato fails to disclose a reference efficiency of said regenerative exchanger, said control means being adapted to act on said adjustment valve means in order to vary their degree of opening, at least on the basis of a difference between the instantaneous efficiency and the reference efficiency of said regenerative exchanger.
Tao teaches a heat exchange apparatus comprising a proportion adjusting valve (7) and an instantaneous efficiency (a heat return efficiency) of a heat regenerator (3) and a reference efficiency (setting different heat recycling efficiency) of said regenerative exchanger (3), said control means being adapted to act on said adjustment valve means (the proportion adjusting valve 7) in order to vary their degree of opening, at least on the basis of a difference between the instantaneous efficiency (the heat return efficiency) and the reference efficiency (setting different heat recycling efficiency) of said regenerative exchanger (3; abstract; the last paragraph of page 6 to paragraph 1 of page 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the heat exchange apparatus of Maeno to incorporate the claimed control feature of the adjustment valve means based on efficiency different as taught by Tao in order to improve the control operation of the heat exchange apparatus by providing better superheat control for the regenerative exchanger based on efficiency difference.
Regarding claim 18, Maeno discloses said circuit comprises at least one liquid line (18) which connects the outlet of said condenser (11) with the inlet of said evaporator (17) and passes through said regenerative exchanger (15; see figure 9), said expansion means (16’) comprising at least one adjustable expansion valve (16’), which is interposed along said liquid line between said regenerative exchanger (15) and said evaporator (17; see figure 9), said adjustment valve means (14 and 16’) comprising at least one first adjustment valve (16’) which is constituted by said at least one adjustable expansion valve (16’; see figure 9).
Regarding claim 19, Maeno discloses said adjustment valve means (14 and 16’) comprise at least one second adjustment valve (14) which is adapted to adjust the flow of the liquid-phase exchange fluid that passes through said regenerative exchanger (15; see figure 9).
Regarding claim 20, Maeno discloses said at least one second adjustment valve (14) is interposed along said liquid line (the liquid line 18 which connecting the condenser 11 and evaporator 17; see figure 9).
Regarding claim 21, Maeno discloses the heat exchange apparatus further comprising a bypass line (19) which connects a first section of said liquid line (18) located upstream of said regenerative exchanger (15) to a second section of said liquid line (18) located downstream of said regenerative exchanger (15; see figure 9), said at least one second adjustment valve (14) being interposed along said bypass line (19; see figure 9).
Regarding claim 22, Maeno discloses said second adjustment valve (14) comprises a variable-aperture three-way valve (14) which is connected, with two ways, along said liquid line (18) and, with a third way, to said bypass line (19; see figure 9).
Regarding claim 23, Maeno discloses said at least one second adjustment valve (14) comprises a variable-aperture two-way valve (14) interposed along said bypass line (see figure 9).
Regarding claim 30, Maeno as modified in detail as in claim 17 above discloses a method for adjusting a heat exchange apparatus of the type (see figure 9) comprising a heat exchange circuit which is passed through by a heat exchange fluid and is provided with an evaporator (17) which is connected in output, by way of the interposition of a compressor (10), to a condenser (11), which is connected in output, by way of the interposition of expansion means (16’), to said evaporator (17) and with the interposition, between said evaporator (17) and said condenser (11), of at least one regenerative exchanger (15) for heat exchange between the vapor-phase exchange fluid that exits from said evaporator (17) and the liquid- phase exchange fluid that exits from said condenser (11; see figure 9), and further comprising the steps of performing a measurement of at least one thermodynamic parameter (temperature and/or pressure) of said exchange fluid at preset points of said circuit (see figure 9), calculating, using the measurements made (the sensed temperature), an instantaneous efficiency and a reference efficiency of said regenerative exchanger (15; the efficiency at different temperatures; see figure 11), calculating a difference between a calculated value of the instantaneous efficiency of said regenerative exchanger (15) and a calculated value of the reference efficiency of said regenerative exchanger(15), and varying a degree of opening of adjustment valve means (14) interposed between an outlet of the condenser (11) and an inlet of the evaporator (17) on the basis of a calculated value of the difference between the instantaneous efficiency and the reference efficiency of said regenerative exchanger (15; see abstract; the last paragraph of page 6 to paragraph 1 of page 7 of Tao).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeno in view of Tao as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Bison et al. (EP2489774, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 24, Maeno fails to discloses said at least one second adjustment valve comprises a two-way valve interposed along said liquid line, upstream of said regenerative exchanger.
Bison teaches a heat exchange apparatus comprising adjustment valve means (30, 32 and 18). Wherein the adjustment valve means comprising at least one first adjustment valve (30) and at least one second adjustment valve (32). Wherein the at least one second adjustment valve (32) comprises a two-way valve (32) interposed along a liquid line (the line which connecting the condenser 16 and the evaporator 20), upstream of said regenerative exchanger (15; see figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the heat exchange apparatus of Maeno to substitute the three-way valve (14) of Meano with the two-way valves (30 and 32) as taught by Bison in order to obtain predictable or similar result which is to pass fluid through the liquid line (18) and the bypass line (19) (see MPEP 2143 section B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-29 and 31-32 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:
Regarding claim 25, Maeno discloses said circuit comprises at least one steam line (the vapor line which connecting the outlet of the evaporator 17, regenerative exchanger 15, the accumulator 20, the compressor 10 and the inlet of the condenser 11) which connects the outlet of said evaporator (17) with the inlet of said condenser (11) and passes through said regenerative exchanger (15; see figure 9), said compressor (10) being interposed along said steam line, between said regenerative exchanger (15) and said condenser (11; see figure 9), said sensor means (31-34) comprising a first temperature sensor (34) which is arranged along said steam line between said regenerative exchanger (15) and said compressor (10), and a pressure sensor (33) arranged along said steam line between said evaporator (17) and said compressor (10; see figure 9).
However, Maeno fails to disclose a second temperature sensor arranged along said liquid line upstream of said regenerative exchanger, a third temperature sensor arranged along said liquid line downstream of said regenerative exchanger.
The primary reference Maeno taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed sensors and sensor locations of the apparatus as required in claims 25-26; the claims control means’ calculation of the reference efficiency by requiring a superheating of the evaporator of the apparatus as required in claim 27 and 32; the claims control of the expansion valve on the basis of the difference between the instantaneous efficiency and the reference efficiency of the regenerative exchanger of the apparatus as required in claims 28-29; and the claimed calculation method of the instantaneous efficiency using the measurement of a temperature of liquid-phase fluid in input and a temperature of vapor-phase of fluid in output of the regenerative exchanger of the apparatus as required in claim 31. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivations to modify the apparatus of Maeno in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 25-29 and 31-32 are allowable.
Conclusion
The 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 KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763