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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are 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 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:
“an effect element […] configured to bring about an interaction […]” (claims 1, 13, 14)
The aforementioned limitation(s) meet the three prong test, as follows:
The limitation uses a generic placeholder (i.e., “element”) with no specific structural meaning.
The limitation contains functional language (i.e., “configured to”).
The claimed function does not appear to recite sufficient structures or materials.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
The “effect element” appears to be described as item 43 for sprinkling the evaporated fluid (¶ 40).1 It is shown as what appear to be spray nozzles in at least figure 1.
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 Objections
The following claims are objected to because of informalities, wherein appropriate correction is required:
In claim 7: the two recitations of “one of the first compressor stage” (in lines 5 and 9) should be amended to instead recite either: A) –the first compressor stage—; or B) –one of the first compressor stage and the second compressor stage—, for grammatical purposes and to avoid ambiguities.
In claim 8: the recitation of “one of the second compressor stage” (in lines 5-6) should be amended to instead recite –the second compressor stage—, for grammatical purposes and to avoid ambiguities.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims seem generally narrative and incongruent with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and contain numerous grammatical and idiomatic errors. Applicant is respectfully requested to review the claims in their entirety for any additional issues that may have not been listed hereinbelow.
Claim 1 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “for evaporating a fluid, in order to obtain evaporated fluid” (in line 2), which renders the scope of the claim unclear. As currently recited, this recitation appears redundant and can be ambiguously construed as having an evaporator that evaporates a first fluid, while also obtaining a second, separate and distinct evaporated fluid. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –for obtaining an evaporated fluid—.
The claim recites the term “the condenser” (in lines 6-7) without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, said first recitation of “the condenser” will be construed as –a condenser—.
The claim recites an interaction “between an intermediate cooling fluid which can be supplied via […]” (in lines 13-14), wherein the inclusion of “can be” raises ambiguities as to the scope of the claimed invention. As currently recited, it is unclear whether the claimed interaction strictly requires the intermediate cooling fluid being supplied through the line, or if anticipation or infringement may occur with an intermediate cooling fluid that is supplied via a different means. For examination purposes, the quoted recitation will be construed as –between an intermediate cooling fluid supplied via […]—.
The claim recites “a heated vaporous fluid” (in lines 14-15), which renders the scope of the claim unclear given the previous recitation of a “compressed fluid”. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement require two separate fluids being handled by the compressor, or if the “compressed fluid” and “heated vaporous fluid” are the same. For examination purposes, the recitation of “a heated vaporous fluid” will be construed as – the compressed fluid—.
Claim 3 contains the following issues:
The claim recites the term “preferably”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2173.05(c) & 21.73.05(d). Applicant is reminded that description(s) of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. A narrower range or preferred embodiment may also be set forth in another independent claim or in a dependent claim. If stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. In this case, the use of “preferably” raises ambiguities as to whether the lateral extension of the return line is actually required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the term “preferably” will be omitted.
The claim recites “the heated vaporous fluid”, which raises the same issues as claim 1. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the compressed fluid—.
The claim recites the phrase “can be”, which raises similar issues as in claim 1 regarding whether anticipation or infringement actually require the claimed discharge from the first compressor. For examination purposes, the recitation of “can be” will be construed as –is—.
Claim 4 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a further return line” (in line 2) which appears to imply the existence of a previous return line. It should be noted that claim 3 recites “a return line”, but claim 4 does not depend thereupon. As currently recited, there exists an ambiguity as to how many return lines are required for anticipation or infringement of claim 4. For examination purposes, the two recitations of “further return line” will be construed as –first return line—.
The claim recites “the condenser sump” (in line 2) with no proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a condenser sump—.
The claim recites “the return line” (in line 4) without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether claim 4 was intended to depend on claim 3 instead. For examination purposes, the recitation of “the return line” will be construed as –a second return line—.
The claim recites the term “preferably”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2173.05(c) & 21.73.05(d). Applicant is reminded that description(s) of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. A narrower range or preferred embodiment may also be set forth in another independent claim or in a dependent claim. If stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. In this case, the use of “preferably” raises ambiguities as to whether the lateral extension of the return line is actually required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the term “preferably” will be omitted.
Claim 6 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the further return line” (in line 5) without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation of “the further return line” will be construed as –a further return line—.
The claim recites the phrase “can be”, which raises similar issues as in claim 1 regarding whether anticipation or infringement actually require the claimed supply from the intermediate cooling sump. For examination purposes, the recitation of “can be” will be construed as –is—.
Claim 7 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a motor assigned to one of the first compressor stage” twice (in lines 5-6 and 10), wherein it is unclear what number of motors is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the second recitation of “a motor” (in line 10) will instead be construed as –the motor—.
The claim recites “to the motor cooling” (at the end of line 9), without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement require: A) the motor cooling line, B) the motor cooling stage, or C) some other “motor cooling”. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –the motor cooling stage—.
Claim 8 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a further motor cooling line” which appears to imply the existence of a previous motor cooling line. It should be noted that claim 7 recites “a motor cooling line”, but claim 8 does not depend thereupon. As currently recited, there exists an ambiguity as to how many motor cooling lines are required for anticipation or infringement of claim 8. For examination purposes, the recitation of “a further motor” will instead be construed as –a motor—.
The claim recites “a further motor cooling stage” which appears to imply the existence of a previous motor cooling stage. It should be noted that claim 7 recites “a motor cooling stage”, but claim 8 does not depend thereupon. As currently recited, there exists an ambiguity as to how many motor cooling stages are required for anticipation or infringement of claim 8. For examination purposes, the recitation of “a further motor” will instead be construed as –a motor—.
Claim 9 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the intermediate cooling sump” without proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether claim 9 was intended to depend on claim 3. For examination purposes, the first recitation of “the intermediate cooling sump” will instead be construed as –an intermediate cooling sump—.
Claim 11 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a still further intermediate cooler” (in line 2) which appears to imply the existence of a “further intermediate cooler” in addition to the “intermediate cooler” of claim 1. Namely, the number of intermediate coolers that is required for anticipation or infringement is unclear. For examination purposes, all the recitations of “still further intermediate cooler” will instead be construed as –second intermediate cooler—.
The claim recites “the further intermediate cooler” (in line 4) without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the first recitation of “a further intermediate cooler” will be construed as –a third intermediate cooler— and the subsequent recitations of “further intermediate cooler” will be construed as –third intermediate cooler—.
The claim recites “the vapour” (in line 5) without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a vapour—.
Claim 12 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the vapour” (in line 5) without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a vapour—.
Claim 13 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “for evaporating a fluid, in order to obtain an evaporated fluid” (in line 2), which renders the scope of the claim unclear. As currently recited, this recitation appears redundant and can be ambiguously construed as having an evaporator that evaporates a first fluid, while also obtaining a separate evaporated fluid. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –for obtaining an evaporated fluid—.
The claim recites “the compressed fluid” (in line 7 of page 6) without proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a compressed fluid—.
The claim recites “a heated vaporous fluid” (in line 5 of page 7), which renders the scope of the claim unclear given the previous recitation of a “compressed fluid”. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement require two separate fluids being handled by the compressor, or if the “compressed fluid” and “heated vaporous fluid” are the same. For examination purposes, all the recitations of “heated vaporous fluid” (including “vaporous fluid” in the last line) will be construed as –compressed fluid—.
The claim recites the phrase “can be”, which raises similar issues as in claim 1 regarding whether anticipation or infringement actually require the claimed supply from the intermediate cooling fluid feeding line. For examination purposes, the recitation of “can be” will be construed as –is—.
Claim 14 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “for evaporating a fluid, in order to obtain an evaporated fluid” (in line 2), which renders the scope of the claim unclear. As currently recited, this recitation appears redundant and can be ambiguously construed as having an evaporator that evaporates a first fluid, while also obtaining a separate evaporated fluid. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –for obtaining an evaporated fluid—.
The claim recites “a heated vaporous fluid” (in the second-to-last line), which renders the scope of the claim unclear given the previous recitation of a “compressed fluid”. It is unclear whether anticipation or infringement require two separate fluids being handled by the compressor, or if the “compressed fluid” and “heated vaporous fluid” are the same. For examination purposes, the recitation of “a heated vaporous fluid” will be construed as –the compressed fluid—.
The claim recites the phrase “can be”, which raises similar issues as in claim 1 regarding whether anticipation or infringement actually require the claimed supply from the intermediate cooling fluid feeding line. For examination purposes, the recitation of “can be” will be construed as –is—.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Lifson et al. (US 20080256975 A1), herein Lifson.
As per claim 1, Lifson discloses a heat pump (10) having the following features: an evaporator (50) for evaporating a fluid (¶ 21), in order to obtain evaporated fluid (at 54), wherein the evaporator (50) comprises an evaporator sump (20); a compressor (30) having a first compressor stage (30-1) and a second compressor stage (30-2), wherein the compressor (30) is arranged in the flow direction of the evaporated fluid (see at least fig. 1), during operation of the heat pump (10), between the evaporator (50) and a condenser (40), and is configured to compress the evaporated fluid (¶ 19), in order to obtain compressed fluid (see also fig. 1); and the condenser (40) for condensing the compressed fluid (¶ 20); and an intermediate cooler (24-26), which is connected to an intermediate cooling fluid feeding line (21) and comprises an effect element (26), wherein the effect element (26) is arranged between the first compressor stage (30-1) and the second compressor stage (30-2) and is configured to bring about an interaction between an intermediate cooling fluid (16) which can be supplied via the intermediate cooling fluid feeding line (21), and the compressed fluid (from 60D) that can be discharged from the first compressor stage (30-1), and wherein the intermediate cooling fluid feeding line (21) extends from the evaporator sump (20) to the effect element (26).
As per claim 2, Lifson discloses wherein the intermediate cooling fluid feeding line (21) extends through an opening (opening at the bottom of 20, connecting the line to 22) in the evaporator sump (20), and wherein the opening (of the line to 22) of the intermediate cooling fluid feeding line (21) is located below a fluid level (of 16) of the fluid in the evaporator sump (20; see fig. 1).
As per claim 10, Lifson discloses wherein at least one filling material (60D) for discharging heat is arranged in a region around the first compressor stage (30-1).
As per claim 13, Lifson discloses a method for operating a heat pump (10) comprising an evaporator (50) for evaporating a fluid, in order to obtain an evaporated fluid (see fig. 1), wherein the evaporator (50) comprises an evaporator sump (20); a compressor (30) having a first compressor stage (30-1) and a second compressor stage (30-2), wherein the compressor (30) is arranged in the flow direction of the evaporated fluid (see fig. 1), during operation of the heat pump (10), between the evaporator (50) and a condenser (40), and is configured to compress the evaporated fluid, in order to obtain the compressed fluid (see fig. 1); and the condenser (40) for condensing the compressed fluid (at 44); and an intermediate cooler (24-26) which is connected to an intermediate cooling fluid feeding line (21) and comprises an effect element (26), wherein the effect element (26) is arranged between the first compressor stage (30-1) and the second compressor stage (30-2), wherein the method comprises: supplying intermediate cooling fluid (16) from the evaporator sump (20) into the effect element (26) via the intermediate cooling fluid feeding line (21); discharging the compressed fluid through the first compressor stage (30-1); causing the intermediate cooling fluid (of 16), which can be supplied via the intermediate cooling fluid feeding line (21), to interact with the compressed fluid discharged from the first compressor stage (30-1), in order to cool the compressed fluid (at 44, via convection using 42).
As per claim 14, Lifson discloses a method for producing a heat pump (10) comprising an evaporator (50) for evaporating a fluid, in order to obtain an evaporated fluid (see fig. 1), wherein the evaporator (50) comprises an evaporator sump (20); a compressor (30) having a first compressor stage (30-1) and a second compressor stage (30-2), wherein the compressor (30) is arranged in the flow direction of the evaporated fluid (fig. 1), during operation of the heat pump (10), between the evaporator (50) and a condenser (40), and is configured to compress the evaporated fluid, in order to obtain compressed fluid (fig. 1); and the condenser (40) for condensing the compressed fluid (fig. 1); wherein the method comprises: arranging an intermediate cooler (24-26) comprising an effect element (26) between the first compressor stage (30-1) and the second compressor stage (30-2); connecting the intermediate cooler (24-26) to an intermediate cooling fluid feeding line (21) which extends from the evaporator sump (20) to the effect element (26), in order to bring about, during operation of the heat pump (10), an interaction between an intermediate cooling fluid (16) which can be supplied via the intermediate cooling fluid feeding line (21), and the compressed fluid that can be discharged from the first compressor stage (30-1).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 11-12 appear to be allowable over the prior art if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all2 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The prior art, when taken as a whole, does not appear to reasonably anticipate nor render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as recited in the aforementioned claims, as currently construed given the § 112(b) rejections. Applicant is advised that any amendments that change the scope of the claims will require further search and/or consideration before any final determination of allowability can be properly established.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See printed publication: US 20250216128 A1.
2 Disclaimer: failure to include all the intervening limitations will result in a different claim scope, which may require a new grounds of rejection prior to a final determination of allowability.
Prosecution Insights