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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed 07/20/2026. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the abstract have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claims 4, 8-9 and 14-17 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-13 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/20/2026 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
Inlet flow control device in at least claim 1
Outlet flow control device in at least 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.
A review of the specification show that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
An inlet flow control device appears to be described as a valve in at least ¶ [0059] of the specification.
An outlet flow control device appears to be described as a valve in at least ¶ [0059] of the specification.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manz (US 5,392,639), and further in view of Ishimura et al. (US 20150075194 A1, hereinafter “Ishimura”).
Regarding Claim 1, Manz teaches a refrigerant testing device [10; Figs. 1-5] for testing said refrigerant [Col. 3, 54 – Col. 6, line 58], said refrigerant testing device comprising:
a container [12], said container comprising an inlet [14] coupled to the refrigerant supply line (similar to 56) for receiving refrigerant from said refrigerant supply line [at least refrigerant storage tank 44] and an outlet [20] coupled to the refrigerant return line (similar to 64) for returning refrigerant to the refrigerant return line [see Fig. 4; refrigerant may flow from storage container 44 to holding vessel 68; Col. 6, 25-44];
an inlet flow control device [16] for opening and closing said inlet [Col. 3, 54 – Col. 4, 13]; and
an outlet flow control device [22] for opening and closing said outlet;
a temperature sensor [32] for sensing a temperature of said refrigerant within said container;
a pressure sensor [30] for sensing a pressure of said refrigerant within said container;
a temperature controller [at least 28] for controlling a heater [74] attached to said container [Col. 5, 54 – Col. 6, 24; Col. 6, 25-44];
control circuitry [at least 28] configured to control said refrigerant testing device to test said refrigerant periodically by:
controlling said inlet and outlet flow control devices to divert part of said refrigerant into said container and to isolate said part of said refrigerant within said container [Col. 4; 54 – Col. 5, 7; valves 16 and 22 are operated such that refrigerant may flow from coupling 18 to container 12];
controlling said temperature controller to change a temperature of said part of said refrigerant [Col. 6, 30-36; sleeve 74 in communication with 28 may heat or cool the refrigerant];
controlling said temperature and pressure sensors to measure said temperature and said pressure of said part of said refrigerant as said temperature changes to produce measured temperature values and measured pressure values [Col. 6, 40-44; temperature and pressure sensors are utilized as endpoints for control]; and
analyzing circuitry [at least combination of 28 and 38] configured to output a warning when one or more of said measured pressure values and said measured temperature values differ from respective reference values by more than a predetermined amount [Col. 4, 8-53; memory 38 provides a lookup table of various refrigerants to the controller 28 to compare with measured values] [Col. 5, 8-25; display 40 may indicate compared values from the controller (i.e. output a warning)].
While Manz teaches a refrigerant testing device, and Manz generally discloses an inlet hose (similar to a refrigerant supply) [56], an outlet hose (similar to a refrigerant return) [64] [Figs. 3-4] and that the source and output of liquid refrigerant may be any number of other refrigerant devices (i.e. an evaporator, compressor or an entire refrigerant circuit) [Col. 4, 65 – Col. 5, 1], Manz does not explicitly disclose a refrigeration system comprising: a refrigerant supply line for supplying refrigerant to an evaporator; a refrigerant return line for returning refrigerant from said evaporator; a compressor for compressing refrigerant received from said return line. While a person of ordinary skill in the art would regard it as normal operation to perform operation of the device more than once, Manz does not explicitly disclose the control circuitry configured to control said refrigerant testing device to test said refrigerant periodically.
However, Ishimura teaches an air conditioning apparatus [100] comprising a composition detection circuit [20] configured to compute the composition of refrigerant components in a refrigerant mixture [¶ 0025-0029]. The air conditioning apparatus comprises an evaporator [at least 50] [¶ 0034] in tandem with a refrigerant line [3] upstream and downstream of the evaporator, and is configured to circulate refrigerant to and from a compressor [10] and the detection unit [¶ 0025]. Ishimura also teaches wherein the refrigerant testing device comprises an inlet [21] coupled to a refrigerant supply line (stemming from compressor 10) and an outlet [22] to a refrigerant return line [Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0025, 0034; inlet pipe 21 receives refrigerant from the downstream side of the compressor, the outlet pipe 22 provides refrigerant to the upstream of the compressor; apparent from inspection]. Ishimura further describes operation of the invention, wherein the controller is constantly updating (i.e. multiple iterations, periodically) when computational results are appropriate with measured results in order to arrive at a system with good overall efficiency [¶ 0007]. Ishimura teaches that systems utilizing zeotropic refrigerants (i.e. mixed refrigerants) provide enhanced operational efficiency and environmental considerations [¶ 0002, 0063], thereby providing a need for a means to detect refrigerant composition to achieve good operational efficiency and energy saving [¶ 0007, 0025]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. utilize mixed refrigerants with a means to detect) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means to determine/obtain the best possible operational efficiency of a system using multiple refrigerants (i.e. a detection circuit) provides a means to save energy, thus improving the system [¶ 0007].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Manz to have a refrigeration system comprising: a refrigerant supply line for supplying refrigerant to an evaporator; a refrigerant return line for returning refrigerant from said evaporator; a compressor for compressing refrigerant received from said return line, in view of the teachings of Ishimura, where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to determine/obtain the best possible operational efficiency of a system using multiple refrigerants (i.e. a detection circuit) provides a means to save energy, thus improving the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Manz, as modified, teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1 above and Ishimura teaches wherein said refrigerant is a mixed refrigerant [Ishimura ¶ 0021; the system tests a mixture of refrigerants], and
Manz teaches said temperature controller being configured to control said temperature to change across a temperature range where at least one component of said mixed refrigerant changes between a liquid and a gaseous state [Col. 6, 25-58; thermoelectric sleeve 74 may heat or cool the refrigerant, thereby capable of switching between states].
Regarding Claim 3, Manz, as modified, teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 2 above and Manz teaches wherein said analyzing circuitry is configured to analyze said changes in pressure at different temperatures and to determine information regarding a composition of said mixed refrigerant from said changes [¶ 0041-0042; Figs. 4-5; at least flow chart in Fig. 5 for computing the composition of a refrigerant comprises measuring at least T1, T2, P1, and P2 on repeat until determination of enthalpy is reached].
Claim 4 canceled
Regarding Claim 7, Manz, as modified, teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1 above and Manz teaches said control circuitry being configured to compare said changes in pressure and temperature with said reference values for said refrigerant in each of said containers [Col. 4, 8-53; memory 38 provides a lookup table of various refrigerants to the controller 28 to compare with measured values]; and to indicate an error where said changes in pressure and temperature differ from said reference values by more than a predetermined amount in one or more of said containers [Col. 5, 8-25; display 40 may indicate compared values from the controller].
While Manz discloses the system as comprising between a generic set of couplings [18, 66], linking the refrigerant testing device chamber [72] to respective refrigerant containers [44, 68], Manz does not explicitly disclose two or more containers each comprising an inlet and outlet and corresponding inlet and outlet flow control devices, said inlets and outlets being configured for connection to different locations within said refrigeration system.
However, it is noted that Manz describes a generic hookup system with couplings, wherein the source of the refrigerant may not be limited to a container, but any refrigerant equipment device [Col. 4, 63 – Col. 5, 1]. Since Manz has already generally described the structure and function of a single container with accompanying inlet/outlet control means, the inclusion of a second container comprising a second set of inlet and outlet flow control means may be considered an obvious design choice regarding a duplication of parts [MPEP 2144.04 VI.B]. Specifically, the inclusion of a second testing chamber, whose function is primarily similar to that already claimed, likely holds no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Upon review of the specification, no criticality could be found regarding the necessity of a second container, or any discussion of new and unexpected results achieved from said second container, outside of providing the obvious improvement of providing further data to the controller. Therefore, the duplication of parts is determined to likely improve the function of the device in a predictable manner.
Claim 8-9 canceled
Regarding Claim 10, Manz, as modified, teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1 above and Ishimura teaches wherein said control circuitry is configured to control said refrigerant testing device to perform an initial step of generating and storing said reference values for said refrigeration system [¶ 0042; Fig. 5; step A1, the controller detects at least T1, T2 and P2] by controlling said refrigerant testing device to test said refrigerant a predetermined number of times and to generate said reference values from said results [¶ 0042; the controller tests the temperature of the refrigerant at least twice, at temperature detection means 32 and 33 within the determining device 20].
Regarding Claim 11, Manz, as modified, teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 10 above and Ishimura teaches wherein initial step is performed for a plurality of different refrigeration system operating conditions or operating modes to generate a plurality of corresponding reference values [Figs. 2-3; ¶ 0033-0040; the system may operate in either a cooling operation condition [Fig. 2] or a heating operation condition [Fig. 3] wherein refrigerant flows through device 20 in both operations to receive data indicative of temperature and pressure, and is therefore capable of performing the initial step for different refrigeration systems/operating modes].
Regarding Claim 12, Manz, as modified, teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 10 above and Manz teaches where said control circuitry being configured to compare said changes in pressure and temperature with said reference values for said refrigerant in each of the first container and the second container [Col. 4, 8-53; memory 38 provides a lookup table of various refrigerants to the controller 28 to compare with measured values] and to indicate an error where said changes in pressure and temperature differ from said reference values by more than a predetermined amount in one or more of the first container and the second container [Col. 5, 8-25; display 40 may indicate compared values from the controller].
While Manz discloses the system as comprising between a generic set of couplings [18, 66], linking the refrigerant testing device chamber [72] to respective refrigerant containers [44, 68], Manz does not explicitly disclose where said refrigerant testing device is a refrigerant testing device comprising a first container and a second container each comprising an inlet and outlet and corresponding inlet and outlet flow control devices, said inlets and outlets being configured for connection to different locations within said refrigeration system, and wherein said control circuitry is configured to control said refrigerant testing device to perform said initial step in both of the first container and the second container such that said reference values are generated and stored for each of the first container and the second container.
However, it is noted that Manz describes a generic hookup system with couplings, wherein the source of the refrigerant may not be limited to a container, but any refrigerant equipment device [Col. 4, 63 – Col. 5, 1]. Since Manz has already generally described the structure and function of a single container with accompanying inlet/outlet control means, the inclusion of a second container comprising a second set of inlet and outlet flow control means may be considered an obvious design choice regarding a duplication of parts [MPEP 2144.04 VI.B]. Specifically, the inclusion of a second testing chamber, whose function is primarily similar to that already claimed, likely holds no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Upon review of the specification, no criticality could be found regarding the necessity of a second container, or any discussion of new and unexpected results achieved from said second container, outside of providing the obvious improvement of providing further data to the controller. The further limitations claiming said obvious improvements of providing additional data to the controller for said duplicated containers may not be considered patentably significant, as the recited function is an obvious improvement from the duplication of parts. Therefore, the duplication of parts is determined to likely improve the function of the device in a predictable manner.
Regarding Claim 13, Manz, as modified, teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 12 above and Ishimura teaches wherein said refrigeration system further comprises at least one phase separator [13] and at least one heat exchanger [12] [¶ 0022-0026; Ishimura discloses that accumulator 13 may receive many phases of refrigerant (gas, liquid and two-phase), but further specifies that only gaseous refrigerant exits the accumulator to be sucked in by the compressor, as it is also commonsensical in the art that introducing liquid state into a compressor degrades compressor efficiency and increases likelihood of wear] [¶ 0024; heat exchanger 12 may function as a condenser or an evaporator depending on the operation];
the inlet [21] to the first container [20] being coupled to said refrigerant supply line at a first point [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection] and the second inlet to the second container being coupled to said refrigerant supply line at a second point [See claim 12 above discussing obvious design choice regarding a duplication of parts], said first and second points being separated by at least one of a phase separator and a heat exchanger [While a Ishimura does not explicitly disclose providing a second container at a different spot in the refrigeration circuit, when considering the obvious improvements for the duplication of parts, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the containers are typically positioned between critical refrigeration components on the refrigerant line (i.e. the compressor, the accumulator, the heat exchangers, etc.). Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. to position a second container: between the compressor and heat exchanger 50, between heat exchanger 50 and heat exchanger 12, or between heat exchanger 12 and accumulator 13, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. providing further data points to operate the air conditioning apparatus efficiently on the basis of appropriate circulating composition [¶ 0005], it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Manz and Ishimura, by trying to position a second inlet to a second container being coupled to said refrigerant supply line at a second point, said first and second points being separated by at least one of a phase separator and a heat exchanger, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claims 14-17 canceled
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manz and Ishimura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eichenlaub (US 5,237,873 A, hereinafter “Eichenlaub”).
Regarding Claim 5, Manz, as modified, teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1 above and Ishimura teaches wherein said analyzing circuitry [is] comprises a machine learning algorithm configured to update said reference values based on said measured pressure values, said measured temperature values, and signals received from refrigeration system indicative of the refrigeration system’s operation [Ishimura ¶ 0058-0059; Figs. 8-9; Ishimura discloses that the determining function receives at least a detected P1, P2, T1, and T2, and makes a determination regarding the computational results compared to the measured results being “correct” and adopts predetermined composition states (i.e. updates) based on whether the values are correct or not, and adopts different values accordingly (i.e. at least C4-C6 and D5-D7)] [Also see Manz Col. 3, 54 – Col. 4, 13 and Col. 5, 14 – 25; pressure sensor 30 and temperature sensor 32 provide electrical signals to controller 28 indicative of measured refrigerant values in the containment vessel, such that the controller may act on said values; temperature and pressure readings are compared with data stored in the memory.
While Ishimura teaches the claimed function above, Ishimura does not explicitly disclose a machine learning algorithm.
However, Eichenlaub teaches a method of determining type of refrigerant [Figs. 1-6; also see Figs 2A-2B] comprising a sample chamber [60], an inlet device [15], an outlet device [18], a temperature measurement device [65] and a means to measure sonic velocity [transducers 62 and 63] [Col. 2, 33-58], also known as function of gas pressure [Col. 3, 65-68]. Eichenlaub further teaches a processing means [19] configured to at least execute the sequence of accepting refrigerant, taking measurements and exhausting the sample [Col. 4, 11-14]. Eichenlaub further teaches a self-calibration system wherein the control means measures a plurality of temperature values at a given sonic velocity (or pressure) such that each value measured may be later used for determination, such as ascertaining straight line fits with known refrigerant characteristics to determine an error in slope and offset which are then stored in memory of the processing means, such that corrected numbers may be used to ascertain the refrigerant in the chamber [Col. 4, 60 – Col. 5, 52]. Eichenlaub further teaches that the self-calibration system corrects for systematic errors caused by imprecision in dimensions and measurements while relaxing accuracy requirements of measurements devices [Col. 5, 53-63]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. self-updating values) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. self-calibration system corrects for systematic errors caused by imprecision in dimensions and measurements while also relaxing accuracy requirements of measurements devices [Col. 5, 53-63].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Manz provide a machine learning algorithm, in view of the teachings of Eichenlaub, where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. self-calibration system corrects for systematic errors caused by imprecision in dimensions and measurements while also relaxing accuracy requirements of measurements devices.
Regarding Claim 6, Manz, as modified, teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 5 above and Ishimura teaches wherein said machine learning algorithm [analyzing circuitry taught by Ishimura] [machine learning algorithm taught by Eichenlaub] is configured to update said reference values during an initial period following commencement of said refrigerant testing [Ishimura ¶ 0059, 0063; Figs. 8-9; the controller (analyzing circuitry) adopts different values for composition based on the detected temperature and pressure values being compared as correct or not correct] [Also see Eichenlaub Col. 4, 46-57; temperature and pressure values are utilized to calculate the temperature coefficient of the sonic velocity, thereby enabling the identifying of refrigerants controls; also see Eichenlaub Col. 3, 1-48 and Figs. 5-6, wherein the relationships of sonic velocity and temperature may be graphed with known refrigerant compositions in order to determine and identify a number of different refrigerant in a single test sample].
Response to Arguments
On pages 8-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the claims as amended are not anticipated by Manz. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The rejection of independent claim 1 now relies upon a combination of cited prior art references.
On pages 9-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Ishimura relates to an air conditioning apparatus, not a refrigeration system. Applicant’s arguments are not convincing, as Ishimura is related to the same field of endeavor, as Ishimura explicitly discloses that the air conditioning apparatus uses a refrigeration cycle by circulating a refrigerant mixture [¶ 0021], to which the thrust of the prior art is dedicated to detecting values, comparing values, and adopting (updating) values if they are determined to be correct. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
On page 10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the remainder of the dependent claims are allowable at least based on their dependency to an allegedly allowable independent claim. As all independent claims have been rejected, all dependent claims also remain rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
