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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 2; the phrase “claim 5” should be changed to –claim 4-- for proper antecedent basis for claimed “said control unit”.
In claim 19, line 2; the phrase “claim 13” should be changed to –claim 17-- for proper antecedent basis for claimed “said step h”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
2. 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. Such claim limitation(s) are: cooling means for, expansion means for, evaporation means, an insulated space adapted, in claim 1; filling and releasing means for in claim 2; detecting means for in claim 9; cooling means for, expansion means for, evaporation means adapted to in claim 10; and means for in claim 12.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
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 3, 9 and 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3, recites the limitation of “intermittent operation in case of partial loads” The limitations render the claim indefinite as the recitation of “intermittent operation” amount to method or process steps, while the claim is drawn to a device (as provided by the preambles of the claims). Accordingly, the apparent conflicts between the limitations render the claims indefinite as it is unclear which statutory category the claimed invention fall within. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9, recites the limitation " said opening/closing valve to control its opening or closing”. It is unclear what constitutes the “its”.
Claim 15, recites the limitation "said at least one expansion reservoir is sized”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 is rejected based upon their dependency from claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haack et al (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2019/0093926 A1), hereinafter referred to as Haack et al ‘926.
Regarding claim 1, Haack et al ‘926 disclose an environmental simulation chamber (10) comprising a refrigeration apparatus comprising refrigeration device having a closed circuit (32) within which a refrigerant fluid circulates, said closed circuit comprising at least one compressor (19), cooling means (17) for said refrigerant fluid, expansion means (21) for said refrigerant fluid and evaporation means (18), said chamber further comprising an insulated space (12) adapted to receive a specimen (test material) to be tested therein and wherein said evaporation means are adapted to regulate the an internal temperature of said insulated space and said refrigerant fluid is carbon dioxide {as shown in Fig. Abstract; ¶¶ [0035-0037]}.
Regarding claim 10, Haack et al ‘926 disclose the environmental simulation chamber according to claim 1, wherein said refrigeration apparatus comprises a further refrigeration device having a further closed circuit (33) within which a further refrigerant fluid circulates, said further closed circuit comprising at least one further compressor (52), further cooling means (53) for said refrigerant fluid, further expansion means (54) for said refrigerant fluid and further evaporation means (55) adapted to operate in cooperation with said cooling means of said refrigeration device, said further refrigeration device operating in a temperature range higher than that at which said refrigeration device operates {see Fig. Abstract, ¶¶ [0037] and, [0041]}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
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 2-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haack et al ‘926, in view of Sugimoto et al (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2015/0135752 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sugimoto et al ‘752.
Regarding claim 2, Haack et al ‘926 disclose the environmental simulation chamber according to claim 1, wherein said closed circuit further comprises an expansion reservoir (refrigerant reservoir) for said carbon dioxide, said expansion reservoir arranged operatively along a first length (42) arranged between said evaporation means (18) and said at least one compressor (19) {as shown in Fig. ¶ [0036-0037]}.
However, Haack et al ‘926 fail to disclose the limitation of wherein said closed circuit further comprises an expansion reservoir for said carbon dioxide, said expansion reservoir arranged operatively along the first length arranged between said evaporation means and said at least one compressor, and filling and releasing means for allowing the filling of refrigerant fluid from said first length to said expansion reservoir and the release of refrigerant fluid from said expansion reservoir to said first length.
Sugimoto et al ‘752 teach: the concept of an expansion reservoir (18/44) for said carbon dioxide, said expansion reservoir arranged operatively along the first length (16 or 42) arranged between said evaporation means (12) and said at least one compressor (5), and filling and releasing means (17/43) for allowing the filling of refrigerant fluid from said first length to said expansion reservoir and the release of refrigerant fluid from said expansion reservoir to said first length {as shown in Figs. 1 and 6: ¶¶ [0020-0091]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Haack et al ‘926 in view of Sugimoto et al ‘752 so as to include an expansion reservoir for said carbon dioxide, said expansion reservoir arranged operatively along the first length arranged between said evaporation means and said at least one compressor, and filling and releasing means for allowing the filling of refrigerant fluid from said first length to said expansion reservoir and the release of refrigerant fluid from said expansion reservoir to said first length, in order to prevent the pressure from exceeding the design pressure (maximum permissible pressure) {Sugimoto et al ‘752 – ¶ [0025]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Haack et al ‘926 in view of Sugimoto et al ‘752 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Haack et al ‘926 and Sugimoto et al ‘752 disclose and teach the environmental simulation chamber according to claim 2, Haack et al ‘926 further disclose wherein said compressor has intermittent operation in case of partial loads {see ¶ [0031].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Haack et al ‘926 and Sugimoto et al ‘752 disclose and teach the environmental simulation chamber according to claim 2, Haack et al ‘926 further disclose comprising at least one control unit that, based on said internal temperature to be regulated within said insulated space, turns on or off said compressor, said refrigerant fluid present in said expansion reservoir feeding said circuit and/or being filled by said circuit {see ¶¶ [0023] and [0033]}.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Haack et al ‘926 and Sugimoto et al ‘752 disclose and teach the environmental simulation chamber according to claim 4, Haack et al ‘926 as modified by Sugimoto et al ‘752 further teach the limitations of wherein said filling and releasing means comprise a connecting conduit (17c/43c) {as shown in annotated Figs. 1 and 6}.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Haack et al ‘926 and Sugimoto et al ‘752 disclose and teach the environmental simulation chamber according to claim 5, Haack et al ‘926 as modified by Sugimoto et al ‘752 further teach the limitations of wherein said connecting conduit comprises a first shut-off valve (17/43) and said control unit opens or closes said first valve to allow or disallow the inflow/outflow of said refrigerant fluid into/from said expansion reservoir depending on the pressure at an outlet from the evaporation means {see Figs. 1, 5-6 and 8: ¶¶ [0029], [0055], [0063], [0065-0067], [0070-0073], [0077], [0087], [0079], [0091] and [0097-0106]}.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Haack et al ‘926 and Sugimoto et al ‘752 disclose and teach a method for operating an environmental simulation chamber according to claim 2, Haack et al ‘926 disclose comprising the steps of: a) setting at least one temperature, or at least one temperature range, to be obtained within said insulated space {see abstract, ¶¶ [0001-0002], [0008], [0011], [0023] and [0036]}; b) activating said at least one compressor to circulate said refrigerant fluid within said closed circuit of said refrigeration device {see ¶¶ [0003] and [0009]}; and c) regulating the opening/closing of said expansion means to vary flow rate of refrigerant fluid passing through said evaporation means depending on said at least one temperature, or said temperature range, required within said insulated space {see Abstract, [0036-0037]}; wherein said refrigerant fluid is carbon dioxide {see ¶¶ [0008] and [0036]}.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Haack et al ‘926 and Sugimoto et al ‘752 disclose and teach the method according to claim 13, Haack et al ‘926 as modified by Sugimoto et al ‘752 further teach the limitations of further comprising step d) filling at least partially said expansion reservoir with said refrigerant fluid {see Figs. 1, 5-6 and 8: ¶¶ [0029], [0055], [0063], [0065-0067], [0070-0073], [0077], [0087], [0079], [0091] and [0097-0106]}.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Haack et al ‘926 and Sugimoto et al ‘752 disclose and teach the method according to claim 14, wherein, if in said step c) said expansion means operate at partial load and said at least one expansion reservoir (30) is sized to contain fluctuations of pressures at the outlet of said evaporation means which are lower than 8 bars, said method further comprises step e) making said compressor work intermittently {see Figs. 1, 5-6 and 8: ¶¶ [0029], [0055], [0063], [0065-0067], [0070-0073], [0077], [0087], [0079], [0091] and [0097-0106]}.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haack et al ‘926 and Sugimoto et al ‘752 as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Reushel et al (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2021/0239668 A1), hereinafter referred to as Reushel et al ‘668.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Haack et al ‘926 and Sugimoto et al ‘752 disclose and teach the environmental simulation chamber according to claim 2, EXCEPT for the limitations of further comprises a storage reservoir of said refrigerant fluid in liquid form, which is arranged in a second length of said closed circuit between said cooling means and said expansion means.
Reushel et al ‘668 teach: the concept of a storage reservoir (16) of said refrigerant fluid in liquid form, which is arranged in a second length (27) of said closed circuit between said cooling means and said expansion means [as shown in Fig. 1: ¶¶ [0037-0040] and [0042]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Haack et al ‘926 in view of Reushel et al ‘668 so as to include a storage reservoir of said refrigerant fluid in liquid form, which is arranged in a second length of said closed circuit between said cooling means and said expansion means, in order to facilitate sampling of the liquid cooling agent {Reushel et al ‘668 – ¶ [0038]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Haack et al ‘926 in view of Reushel et al ‘668 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haack et al ‘926, in view of SONNEKALB et al (English Translated German Pub No.: DE102014019856 B3), hereinafter referred to as SONNEKALB et al ‘856.
Regarding claim 8, Haack et al ‘926 disclose the environmental simulation chamber according to claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitations further comprising at least one auxiliary line which directly or indirectly connects said closed circuit to said insulated space, said auxiliary line an inlet section for said refrigerant fluid arranged along a first length of said closed circuit between said evaporation means and said at least one compressor, an outlet section for said refrigerant fluid, and an opening/closing valve for allowing or preventing passage of said refrigerant fluid along said auxiliary line, said outlet section connected to said insulated space for the inflow of carbon dioxide in gaseous form into said insulated section.
SONNEKALB et al ‘856 teach: the well-known concept of one auxiliary line (36) which directly or indirectly connects said closed circuit and an opening/closing valve (40) for allowing or preventing passage of said refrigerant fluid along said auxiliary line for the inflow of carbon dioxide into designated area {as shown in Fig. 1: ¶ [0052]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Haack et al ‘926 in view of SONNEKALB et al ‘856 so as to include at least one auxiliary line which directly or indirectly connects said closed circuit to said insulated space, said auxiliary line an inlet section for said refrigerant fluid arranged along a first length of said closed circuit between said evaporation means and said at least one compressor, an outlet section for said refrigerant fluid, and an opening/closing valve for allowing or preventing passage of said refrigerant fluid along said auxiliary line, said outlet section connected to said insulated space for the inflow of carbon dioxide in gaseous form into said insulated section, in order to facilitate extinguishing of source of the fire {SONNEKALB et al ‘856 – ¶ [0052]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Haack et al ‘926 in view of SONNEKALB et al ‘856 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Haack et al ‘926 and SONNEKALB et al ‘856 disclose and teach the environmental simulation chamber according to claim 8, Haack et al ‘926 as modified by SONNEKALB et al ‘856 further teach comprising detecting means (44) for detecting an ignition of a fire within said insulated space, said detecting means operatively connected to said opening/closing valve to control its opening or closing {see ¶ [0052]}.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 11, 12 and 16-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE-102016204378-A1 to HAACK CHRISTIAN.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571)272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
06/03/2026
Prosecution Insights