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 .
Drawings
Figures 1 and 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits of the invention. 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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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 12-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota (US 6,192,695) in view of Torrence (US 5,577,705) and Hirota ‘959 (US 6,351,959).
As to claims 12 and 16, Hirota teaches an air conditioning system for a vehicle comprising:
valves 20/28/29; and
a refrigerant compressor 1; and
heat exchangers 2/4;
wherein first external connection lines are arranged between each of the valves 20/28/29, the refrigerant compressor 1, and the heat exchangers 2/4, wherein a multi-valve block is arranged in the air-conditioning system in which the valves 20/28/29 are arranged, in that the multi-valve block has several attachment points and in that second internal connection lines are arranged between the attachment points and structural parts of the multi-valve block (Fig. 8; col. 9, lines 30-37).
Hirota is silent in regards to any sensors in the system or in the multi-valve block. However, Torrence teaches that it is known to utilize temperature sensors in a valve block (col. 1, lines 49-54). Furthermore, Hirota ‘959 teaches that combining components in a valve block results in convenience of manufacturing and reduction of mounting space (col. 2, lines 63-65). In light of these teaching it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hirota to incorporate sensors in the multi-valve block because it would provide a means for automatic control of the system that is conveniently manufactured and does not utilize an unwanted amount of space.
As to claim 13, Hirota is silent regarding a shape of the valve block. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the reference by having a cube or cylinder shaped block, since applicant has not disclosed that having a particular shape solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the system would perform equally well with any valve block shape.
As to claim 14, Hirota is silent regarding use of any particular type of valve. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the reference by having needle or ball valves, since applicant has not disclosed that having a particular valve solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the system would perform equally well with any available type of valve.
As to claim 15, Hirota teaches use of a non-return valve 7, but does not explicitly teach including it in the valve block. However, Hirota ‘959 teaches that combining components in a valve block results in convenience of manufacturing and reduction of mounting space (col. 2, lines 63-65). In light of these teaching it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hirota to incorporate the non-return valve 7 in the multi-valve block because it would provide a configuration that reduces the mounting space and that is conveniently manufactured.
As to claim 17, Hirota teaches refrigerant lines attached to the valve block (Fig. 8) and thus inherently includes attachment means as claimed.
As to claim 20, Hirota, as modified and discussed in the rejections above, includes three first valves 20/28/29, a non-return valve 7, a temperature sensor, and second internal connection lines arranged in the multi-valve block. Hirota teaches a second valve 3/9/19 but does not explicitly incorporate a second valve into the valve block. However, Hirota ‘959 teaches that combining components in a valve block results in convenience of manufacturing and reduction of mounting space (col. 2, lines 63-65). In light of these teaching it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hirota to incorporate a second valve 3/9/19 in the multi-valve block because it would provide a configuration that reduces the mounting space and that is conveniently manufactured.
As to claim 21, the modified apparatus is silent regarding mounting of the valve block to the compressor 1. However, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as selection of a mounting location on the compressor 1 would merely be a matter of routine optimization when constructing the assembly.
As to claim 22, Hirota teaches the valves 20/28/29 arranged in the valve block (col. 9, lines 30-37), and thus the valves are necessarily arranged in openings with a connection to the internal lines (Fig. 8).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied in the rejections above, and further in view of Shikazono (US 2010/0251702).
As to claim 18, Hirota does not explicitly teach a gap as claimed. However, Shikazono teaches that it is known to utilize a gap between conduits to prevent unwanted heat exchange therebetween (paragraph 28). In light of this teach it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the valve block of Hirota to utilize a gap between higher and lower temperature regions in the manner as claimed in order to prevent unwanted heat exchange therebetween.
As to claim 19, the modified apparatus is silent regarding the width(s) of the gap. However, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as varying the width of the gap across the block would merely be a matter of routine optimization when constructing the assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights