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 on 02/14/2025.
Claims 1-18 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Further recognition:
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in light of the arguments.
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments and restated objections have been upheld.
The objections to the abstract have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
The rejections pursuant to 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 7-9 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “… the actual value.”
The claim should be amended to recite - - an actual value - - since there is no previous mention to a target value before claim 3. This is throughout the claims.
Regarding claims 3 and 7 the claim recites “… the target value.”
The claim should be amended to recite - - a target value - - since there is no previous mention to a target value before claims 3 and 7. This is throughout the claims.
Regarding claims 8 and 13, the claim recites “… the second value.” Due to Claims 8 and 13 having no dependency to claim 2 where “a second value” is introduced
the claims should be amended to recite - - a second value - - for clarity.
Claims 4, 9 and 14-15 are objected to because of dependency from an objected to claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Regarding claim 16, the recitation of claim limitation “cross-section reducing element " in at least claim 16.
Corresponds to “preferably a flap or an orifice or a leaf door or a check valve” in paragraph 0068 of the specification.
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(a)
Claim 6-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 6, applicant has added the limitation “in order to operate both the first compressor stage and the second compressor stage, in a second power region, in such a way that pressure ratios of the two compressor stages are substantially identical” in lines 6-8 of the claim, which is not described in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be NEW MATTER. In particular, the recited claim limitation“ … in order to operate both the first compressor stage and the second compressor stage, in a second power region, in such a way that pressure ratios of the two compressor stages are substantially identical,” is not described in the claim or the specification. The specification does not describe substantially identical in relation to the compressor pressure ratios.
Therefore, the claim fails the new matter requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claims 7-9 are rejected to because of dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-18, 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.
Regarding Claim 1 and 17-18, are rejected, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are, “an intermediate cooling sump.”
A sump must be associated with a structural cooperative relationship. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize a fluid is flowing to the sump, however, there is no structure in the independent claims 1 and 17-18 to which the intermediate cooling sump is associated with.
Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Claim 6, the term “substantially” is relative a term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term “substantially” 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. Therefore “…wherein a difference between the pressure ratios of the first compressor stage and the second compressor stage reduces at increasing power requirements, and, in order to operate both the first compressor stage and the second compressor stage, in a second power region, in such a way that pressure ratios of the two compressor stages are substantially identical, in the second power region,” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Claim 8, the terms “maximum” is relative a term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term “maximum” 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.
Therefore “…wherein the controller is configured to use a maximum value from a function of the second value or a predefined constant as a target value for controlling the second rotational speed of the second compressor stage; wherein the maximum value is determined by a maximum function that selects the higher value from the function of the second value or the predefined constant.,” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of “… a first temperature sensor for acquiring a first temperature” and “a second temperature sensor for acquiring a second temperature” renders the claim unclear.
It is unclear if applicant means to introduce “a first temperature sensor for acquiring a first temperature" and “a second temperature sensor for acquiring a second temperature,” or if they referring to the first temperature sensor for acquiring the first temperature and the second temperature sensor for acquiring the second temperature from claim 1.
Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - the intermediate cooling sump - - and - - the second temperature sensor for acquiring the second temperature - -for clarity.
Regarding Claim 11, the recitation of “… an intermediate cooling sump” renders the claim unclear.
It is unclear if applicant means to introduce “an intermediate cooling sump" or if they referring to the intermediate cooling sump from claim 1.
Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - the intermediate cooling sump - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation of “… a first temperature” renders the claim unclear.
It is unclear if applicant means to introduce “a first temperature" or if they referring to the first temperature from claim 1.
Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - the first temperature - - for clarity.
Claims 2, 4-5, 9, 12 and 14-16 are rejected to because of dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of “wherein the value acquisition device comprises a first temperature sensor for acquiring a first temperature with respect to the evaporator, and a second temperature sensor for acquiring a second temperature with respect to an outlet of the first compressor stage, and wherein the value acquisition device is configured to determine the first value from the first temperature and the second temperature” does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because the limitations are already claimed see claim 1.
Claims 11-12 are rejected to because of dependency from a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pgs. 11-16, filed 08/12/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are rejected to, but would be allowable if rewritten to fix 35 USC § 112(b) issues including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Herrs et al (EP2894417A1) and in view of Tsuboi (JP2012067954).
The prior art of record teaches a heat pump comprising:
an evaporator having an evaporator sump, the evaporator configured for evaporating a fluid, in order to obtain an evaporated fluid;
a condenser for condensing a compressed fluid;
a compressor having a first compressor stage and a second compressor stage, wherein the compressor is arranged in a flow direction of the evaporated fluid, during operation of the heat pump, between the evaporator and the condenser, and is configured to compress the evaporated fluid, in order to obtain the compressed fluid; a value acquisition device for acquiring a first value, which corresponds to a first pressure ratio between an inlet of the first compressor stage and an outlet of the first compressor stage, or is dependent on the first pressure ratio; and a controller for controlling a first rotational speed of the first compressor stage and a second rotational speed of the second compressor stage, wherein the controller is configured to control the second rotational speed of the second compressor stage depending on a first value (P1).
In contrast to the claimed features,
wherein the value acquisition device comprises a first temperature sensor arranged in the evaporator sump for acquiring a first temperature with respect to the evaporator, and a second temperature sensor arranged in an intermediate cooling sump for acquiring a second temperature with respect to an outlet of the first compressor stage, and wherein the value acquisition device is configured to determine the first value (P1) from the first temperature and the second temperature.
Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and independent claim 1 with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Regarding claim 17, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Herrs et al (EP2894417A1) and in view of Tsuboi (JP2012067954).
The prior art of record teaches a method for operating a method for operating a heat pump comprising:
an evaporator for evaporating a fluid, in order to obtain an evaporated fluid;
a condenser for condensing a compressed fluid; and a compressor having a first compressor stage and a second compressor stage,
wherein the compressor is arranged in the flow direction of the evaporated fluid, during operation of the heat pump, between the evaporator and the condenser, and is configured to compress the evaporated fluid, in order to obtain the compressed fluid, said method comprising the following steps:
acquiring a first value, which corresponds to a first pressure ratio between an inlet of the first compressor stage and an outlet of the first compressor stage, or is dependent on the first pressure ratio.
In contrast to the claimed features,
wherein acquiring comprises measuring a first temperature in an evaporator sump using a first temperature sensor and measuring a second temperature in an intermediate cooling sump using a second temperature sensor, and determining the first value from the first temperature and the second temperature; and
controlling a first rotational speed of the first compressor stage and a second rotational speed of the second compressor stage, wherein the second rotational speed of the second compressor stage is controlled depending on the first value.
Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and independent claim 17 with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Regarding claim 18, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Herrs et al (EP2894417A1) and in view of Tsuboi (JP2012067954).
The prior art of record teaches a method for producing a heat pump comprising: an evaporator for evaporating a fluid, in order to obtain an evaporated fluid;
a condenser for condensing a compressed fluid; and
a compressor having a first compressor stage and a second compressor stage, said method comprising the following steps:
arranging the compressor in the flow direction of the evaporated fluid, during operation of the heat pump, between the evaporator and the condenser, in order to compress the evaporated fluid, in order to obtain the compressed fluid; and
connecting a value acquisition device, for acquiring a first value, which corresponds to a first pressure ratio between an inlet of the first compressor stage and an outlet of the first compressor stage, or is dependent on the first pressure ratio, to the compressor, the evaporator or the condenser.
In contrast to the claimed features,
wherein the value acquisition device comprises a first temperature sensor configured to be arranged in an evaporator sump of the evaporator and a second temperature sensor configured to be arranged in an intermediate cooling sump,
wherein the value acquisition device is configured to determine the first value from temperatures measured by the first and second temperature sensors; and
connecting a controller, for controlling a first rotational speed of the first compressor stage and a second rotational speed of the second compressor stage, to the compressor,
wherein the second rotational speed of the second compressor stage is controlled depending on the first value.
Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and independent claim 18 with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 replying 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 Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 09:00AM-07:00PM (Eastern).
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.
/ADAM D MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights