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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 5-7 have been amended.
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: a first evaporation device and a second evaporation device in claims 1, 3, and 6; a heating medium in claims 1-7; a heat dissipation device in claims 1-7; a heat absorption device in claims 1-7; and a cooling medium in claims 1-7.
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 7-9 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.
The term “turbo-type” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “turbo-type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what “type” is intended to convey.
The term “displacement-type” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “displacement-type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what “type” is intended to convey.
By virtue of dependency, claims 8-9 are also indefinite and unclear, therefor also rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blatchley et al. (US 2017/0087957 A1), hereafter referred to as “Blatchley,” in view of Kobayashi et al. (EP 3708924 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kobayashi.”
Regarding Claim 1: Blatchley teaches a vehicle thermal management system (title) comprising: a refrigerant circuit (51) including:
a first compressor (52) and a first flow passage to compress refrigerant (any line in 51);
a condenser (53) into which the refrigerant compressed by the compressor (52) is introduced and at which the refrigerant dissipates heat to a heating medium or outside air (paragraph [0025]);
a first expansion valve (56) and a second expansion valve (57) through which the refrigerant after flowing through the condenser (53) is expanded (see Figure 3);
a first evaporation device (54) into which the refrigerant expanded through the first expansion valve (56) is introduced and at which the refrigerant absorbs heat from inside air (54 is in the cabin, paragraph [0025]), the first evaporation device (54) being connected to the first flow passage through a second flow passage (see Figure 3); and a second evaporation device (55) into which the refrigerant expanded through the second expansion valve (57) is introduced and at which the refrigerant absorbs heat from a cooling medium (coolant, see arrows 64) or the outside air, the second evaporation device (44) being connected to the first compressor through a third flow passage (see Figure 3);
and a medium circuit (loop with coolant 64) including at least one of a heating medium circuit having a heating medium pump that circulates the heating medium and a heat dissipation device at which the heating medium dissipates heat to an object to be heated or a cooling medium circuit (loop 64) having a cooling medium pump (60) that circulates the cooling medium (coolant 64) and a heat absorption device (44, cold plates in 40, paragraph [0023]) at which the cooling medium (coolant 64) absorbs heat from an object (40) to be cooled, wherein the vehicle thermal management system (title) performs at least one of the heat dissipation from the refrigerant compressed by the compressor (52) to the heating medium at the condenser (53) or the heat absorption from the cooling medium (coolant circulated by 60) to the refrigerant expanded through the second expansion valve (57) at the second evaporation device (55).
Blatchley fails to teach a first compressor and a second compressor that are connected in series through a first flow passage and compress refrigerant.
Kobayashi teaches a first compressor (3) and a second compressor (4) that are connected in series (see Figure 2) through a first flow passage (see Figure 2) and compress refrigerant (functional limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a first compressor and a second compressor that are connected in series through a first flow passage and compress refrigerant to the structure of Blatchley as taught by Kobayashi in order to advantageously provide optimal compression according to the state of the refrigerant flowing out of each evaporator (see Kobayashi, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 6: Blatchley teaches wherein the second evaporation device (55) is a chiller (paragraph [0025]) at which heat is exchanged between the refrigerant (loop 51) and the cooling medium (loop 64, paragraph [0026]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blatchley et al. (US 2017/0087957 A1), hereafter referred to as “Blatchley,” in view of Kobayashi et al. (EP 3708924 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kobayashi,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murase et al. (US 2002/0104327 A1), hereafter referred to as “Murase.”
Regarding Claim 2: Blatchley modified supra fails to teach wherein the second flow passage and the third flow passage are connected through a bypass passage, and a first on-off valve is provided in the bypass passage.
Murase teaches wherein a second flow passage (line from 20 to 42) and a third flow passage (line 46 to 47) are connected through a bypass passage (61), and a first on-off valve (63 or 65, paragraphs [0039] and [0056]) is provided in the bypass passage (61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the second flow passage and the third flow passage are connected through a bypass passage, and a first on-off valve is provided in the bypass passage to the structure of Blatchley modified supra as taught by Murase in order to advantageously provide flow control between separate flow passages (see Murase, paragraphs [0039] and [0056]-[0057]).
Regarding Claim 3: Blatchley modified supra teaches further comprising a controller (50 of Blatchley), wherein under control of the controller (50 of Blatchley), the refrigerant circuit (51 of Blatchley) is operated in any one of the following modes:
a first mode in which the refrigerant that has absorbed heat from the inside air at the first evaporation device (54 of Blatchley) is compressed by the second compressor (4 of Kobayashi) and the compressed refrigerant dissipates the heat to the heating medium or the outside air at the condenser (53 of Blatchley);
a second mode in which the refrigerant that has absorbed heat from the cooling medium (coolant 64 of Blatchley) or the outside air at the second evaporation device (55 of Blatchley) is compressed by the first compressor (52 of Blatchley) and the second compressor (4 of Kobayashi) and the compressed refrigerant dissipates the heat to the heating medium or the outside air (paragraph [0025] of Blatchley) at the condenser (53 of Blatchley);
a third mode in which the refrigerant that has absorbed heat from the cooling medium (coolant 64 of Blatchley) or the outside air at the second evaporation device (55 of Blatchley) is compressed by the second compressor (4 of Kobayashi) and the compressed refrigerant dissipates the heat to the heating medium or the outside air (paragraph [0025] of Blatchley) at the condenser (53 of Blatchley);
a fourth mode in which the refrigerant that has absorbed heat from the inside air (paragraph [0025] of Blatchley) at the first evaporation device (54 of Blatchley) is compressed by the second compressor (4 of Kobayashi) and the compressed refrigerant dissipates the heat to the heating medium or the outside air (paragraph [0025] of Blatchley) at the condenser (53 of Blatchley) and in which the refrigerant that has absorbed heat from the cooling medium (coolant 64 of Blatchley) or the outside air at the second evaporation device (55 of Blatchley) is compressed by the first compressor (52 of Blatchley) and the second compressor (4 of Kobayashi) and the compressed refrigerant dissipates the heat to the heating medium or the outside air (paragraph [0025] of Blatchley) at the condenser (53 of Blatchley); and a fifth mode in which the refrigerant that has absorbed heat from the inside air (paragraph [0025] of Blatchley) at the first evaporation device (54 of Blatchley) is compressed by the second compressor (4 of Kobayashi) and the compressed refrigerant dissipates the heat to the heating medium or the outside air (paragraph [0025] of Blatchley) at the condenser and in which the refrigerant that has absorbed heat from the cooling medium or the outside air at the second evaporation device (55 of Blatchley) is compressed by the second compressor (4 of Kobayashi) and the compressed refrigerant dissipates the heat to the heating medium or the outside air (paragraph [0025] of Blatchley) at the condenser (53 of Blatchley).
Regarding Claim 4: Blatchley modified supra teaches under control of the controller (50 of Blatchley), the refrigerant circuit (51 of Blatchley) is operated in a sixth mode in which the refrigerant that has absorbed heat from the inside air at the first evaporation device (54 of Blatchley) is compressed by first compressor (52 of Blatchley) and the second compressor (4 of Kobayashi) and the compressed refrigerant dissipates the heat to the heating medium or the outside air (paragraph [0025] of Blatchley) at the condenser (53 of Blatchley) and in which the refrigerant that has absorbed heat from the cooling medium (coolant pumped by 60 of Blatchley) or the outside air at the second evaporation device (55 of Blatchley) is compressed by the first compressor (52 of Blatchley) and the second compressor (4 of Kobayashi) and the compressed refrigerant dissipates the heat to the heating medium or the outside air (paragraph [0025] of Blatchley) at the condenser (53 of Blatchley).
Blatchley modified supra fails to teach wherein a second on-off valve is provided in the second flow passage; the second on-off valve is disposed downstream of a connecting portion between the second flow passage and the bypass passage in a direction in which the refrigerant flows.
Murase teaches wherein a second on-off valve (42) is provided in a second flow passage (line from 20 to 42); the second on-off valve (42) is disposed downstream of a connecting portion (at P) between the second flow passage (line from 20 to 42) and a bypass passage (61) in a direction in which refrigerant flows (refrigerant from 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein a second on-off valve is provided in the second flow passage; the second on-off valve is disposed downstream of a connecting portion between the second flow passage and the bypass passage in a direction in which the refrigerant flows to the structure of Blatchley modified supra as taught by Murase in order to advantageously provide flow control between separate flow passages (see Murase, paragraphs [0039] and [0056]-[0057]).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blatchley et al. (US 2017/0087957 A1), hereafter referred to as “Blatchley,” in view of Kobayashi et al. (EP 3708924 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kobayashi,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2012/0234026 A1), hereafter referred to as “Oh.”
Regarding Claim 5: Blatchley modified supra fails to teach wherein the condenser is a water-cooled condenser at which heat is exchanged between the refrigerant and the heating medium.
Oh teaches a condenser (322) is a water-cooled condenser (paragraph [0048]) at which heat is exchanged between a refrigerant (paragraph [0048]) and a heating medium (loop B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the condenser is a water-cooled condenser at which heat is exchanged between the refrigerant and the heating medium to the structure of Blatchley modified supra as taught by Oh in order to advantageously provide various options of known variety to the system based on system needs (see Oh, paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 7: Blatchley modified supra fails to teach wherein the first compressor is of a turbo type and the second compressor is of a displacement type.
Oh teaches a compressor (312) is of a turbo type (paragraph [0043]) or of a displacement type (paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first compressor is of a turbo type and the second compressor is of a displacement type to the structure of Blatchley modified supra as taught by Oh in order to advantageously provide various options of known variety to the system based on system needs (see Oh, paragraph [0043]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blatchley et al. (US 2017/0087957 A1), hereafter referred to as “Blatchley,” in view of Kobayashi et al. (EP 3708924 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kobayashi,” and Oh et al. (US 2012/0234026 A1), hereafter referred to as “Oh,” as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Durrani et al. (US 2017/0182867 A1), hereafter referred to as “Durrani.”
Regarding Claim 8: Blatchley modified supra fails to teach wherein a check valve is provided in the first flow passage, and the check valve is disposed upstream of a connecting portion between the first flow passage and the second flow passage in a direction in which the refrigerant flows.
Durrani teaches wherein a check valve (25) is provided in a first flow passage (line from 16), and the check valve (25) is disposed upstream of a connecting portion (16) between the first flow passage (line from 16) and a second flow passage (line from 21 into 16, paragraph [0082]) in a direction in which the refrigerant flows (see Figure 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein a check valve is provided in the first flow passage, and the check valve is disposed upstream of a connecting portion between the first flow passage and the second flow passage in a direction in which the refrigerant flows to the structure of Blatchley modified supra as taught by Durrani in order to advantageously provide refrigerant control between passages (see Durrani, paragraph [0109]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blatchley et al. (US 2017/0087957 A1), hereafter referred to as “Blatchley,” in view of Kobayashi et al. (EP 3708924 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kobayashi,” and Oh et al. (US 2012/0234026 A1), hereafter referred to as “Oh,” as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mayer (5,001,908).
Regarding Claim 9: Blatchley modified supra fails to teach wherein an oil separator is provided on a side of the second compressor to which the refrigerant is discharged, and the oil separator separates lubricant oil from the refrigerant compressed by the second compressor and returns the separated lubricant oil to a side of the second compressor from which the refrigerant is sucked.
Mayer teaches wherein an oil separator (30) is provided on a side of a compressor (12) to which refrigerant is discharged (line 37), and the oil separator (30) separates lubricant oil from the refrigerant compressed by the compressor (12) and returns (via return line 40) the separated lubricant oil to a side of the compressor (12) from which the refrigerant is sucked (39 into 41 that receives refrigerant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein an oil separator is provided on a side of the second compressor to which the refrigerant is discharged, and the oil separator separates lubricant oil from the refrigerant compressed by the second compressor and returns the separated lubricant oil to a side of the second compressor from which the refrigerant is sucked to the structure of Blatchley modified supra as taught by Mayer in order to advantageously prevent diminished heat transfer and reduced compressor efficiency (see Mayer, Column 1, lines 20-30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saperstein et al. (5,265,437).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights