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 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:
“heating device”
“control device”
“monitoring device”
“device for photographic imaging or the like”
“device for photographic imaging in the visible wavelength range”
“device for photographic imaging in the non-visible wavelength range”
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 4, 8-14 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8-9 recites the limitation "the heating direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the monitoring devices". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chopra (US Pat No. 4,152,900), hereinafter referred to as Chopra.
Re claim 1 and 16, Chopra teaches a device comprising:
a heat exchanger (e.g. 14),
wherein the heat exchanger has pipes (e.g. 38) which carry a cooling medium (e.g. C3-lns 40-45, “refrigerant and distributes it to tubes 38”),
wherein the heat exchanger has a fin arrangement (e.g. 34) which is penetrated by the pipes,
and wherein the heat exchanger has a heating device (e.g. 50) integrated in the heat exchanger,
with a control device (e.g. Fig 8) for controlling the heating device,
wherein
the heating device has two or more separately controllable heating sections (e.g. 50A and 50B),
wherein each heating section is assigned a defrosting area (e.g. area of 50A and 50B) of the heat exchanger,
and wherein the heating device is set up for separate defrosting of individual defrosting areas of the heat exchanger by the separately controllable heating sections (e.g. C6-lns 1-15, “Each bulb is operatively arranged through the mechanism of commonly-known thermostatic devices to open their respective switches when a preset temperature has been reached. Typically, the temperatures of each of thermostatic switches operated by bulbs 40 and 41 will be set to about 60° F. When the heaters in the upper portion of the evaporator have raised the temperature of the thermostat 41 in the upper section to the set point, switch 60 will open, removing heat from the heaters 50 (B). The termination of the heating in the upper portion of the coil therefore prevents the upper portion from overheating. In the meantime, the lower portion of the coil continues its heating operation until the bulb 41, located in the lower portion, warms to its set point of 60° and causes thermostatic switch 62 to open, stopping the heating effect of heaters 50 A located in the lower portion of the coil. In this way, the upper portion of the coil receives less direct heat than the lower portion”).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 2, Chopra teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the two or more separately controllable heating sections and the defrosting areas of the heat exchanger assigned to each heating section are arranged in rows and/or columns (e.g. Fig 4-5).
Re claim 3, Chopra teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein heating elements of the heating device are arranged partially or completely within an envelope of the fin arrangement (e.g. C4-lns 30-40, “the heaters 50 are centrally located, inserted through holes in the fins in the body of the coil 9 in a vertical file”).
Re claim 4, Chopra teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein the heating elements comprise electric heating elements, such as heating rods or the like, which penetrate the fin arrangement (see Fig 4 and C4-lns 30-40, “the heaters 50 are centrally located, inserted through holes in the fins in the body of the coil 9 in a vertical file”).
Re claim 5, Chopra teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein in that each heating section is assigned a heating rod group (see e.g. Fig 4 and 8).
Re claim 11, Chopra teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the control device is set up for sensor-controlled control (inherent) of the heating device, wherein at least one monitoring device (40/41) is provided, such as a sensor (40/41), and wherein the monitoring device is provided for detecting a degree of icing, for determining a defrosting time and for controlling a defrosting process by the control device (intended use).
Re claim 12, Chopra teaches the device according to claim 11, two or more monitoring areas are monitored by the monitoring device, wherein the monitoring areas are arranged in rows and/or columns (see Fig 4 the position of 40 and 41).
Re claim 13, Chopra teaches the device according to claim 11, the monitoring device is a temperature sensor (40/41).
Re claim 14, Chopra teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein a first group of one or more monitoring areas (upper area) is associated with a first arrangement of one or more first monitoring devices (40) for monitoring the first group of one or more monitoring areas (Fig 4), and
wherein a second group of one or more monitoring areas (lower area) is associated with a second arrangement of one or more second monitoring devices (41) for monitoring the second group of one or more monitoring areas (Fig 4).
Re claim 15, Chopra teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the control device is set up for sensor-controlled control (40/41) of the heating device.
Re claim 17, Chopra teaches the method according to claim 16, all defrosting areas are defrosted simultaneously and then individual or several heating sections are switched off (e.g. C6-lns 1-15, “Each bulb is operatively arranged through the mechanism of commonly-known thermostatic devices to open their respective switches when a preset temperature has been reached. Typically, the temperatures of each of thermostatic switches operated by bulbs 40 and 41 will be set to about 60° F. When the heaters in the upper portion of the evaporator have raised the temperature of the thermostat 41 in the upper section to the set point, switch 60 will open, removing heat from the heaters 50 (B). The termination of the heating in the upper portion of the coil therefore prevents the upper portion from overheating. In the meantime, the lower portion of the coil continues its heating operation until the bulb 41, located in the lower portion, warms to its set point of 60° and causes thermostatic switch 62 to open, stopping the heating effect of heaters 50 A located in the lower portion of the coil. In this way, the upper portion of the coil receives less direct heat than the lower portion”).
Re claim 18, Chopra teaches the method according to claim 16, the defrosting areas of the heat exchanger are defrosted row by row and/or column by column (e.g. C6-lns 1-15, “Each bulb is operatively arranged through the mechanism of commonly-known thermostatic devices to open their respective switches when a preset temperature has been reached. Typically, the temperatures of each of thermostatic switches operated by bulbs 40 and 41 will be set to about 60° F. When the heaters in the upper portion of the evaporator have raised the temperature of the thermostat 41 in the upper section to the set point, switch 60 will open, removing heat from the heaters 50 (B). The termination of the heating in the upper portion of the coil therefore prevents the upper portion from overheating. In the meantime, the lower portion of the coil continues its heating operation until the bulb 41, located in the lower portion, warms to its set point of 60° and causes thermostatic switch 62 to open, stopping the heating effect of heaters 50 A located in the lower portion of the coil. In this way, the upper portion of the coil receives less direct heat than the lower portion”).
Re claim 19, Chopra teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein a degree of icing of the heat exchanger is monitored during operation of the heat exchanger (monitored by 40/41),
wherein two or more monitoring areas (area for A and area for B) of the heat exchanger are monitored by at least one monitoring device (40/41),
wherein a degree of icing is determined for each monitoring area of the heat exchanger, wherein the monitoring areas are arranged particular in rows and/or columns (see Fig 4).
Re claim 20, see rejection for claim 1 and 15.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra, in view of Petrenko (US 20060272340), hereinafter referred to as Petrenko.
Re claim 6, Chopra teaches the device according to claim 3. Chopra does not teach the limitation of wherein the heating elements have pipes which penetrate the fin arrangement.
However, Petrenko teaches the limitation of a heat exchanger (Fig 34) comprising heating elements (460(2)) have pipes (460(2)) which penetrate a fin arrangement (2(4)).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Chopra and integrated wherein the heating elements have pipes which penetrate the fin arrangement, as taught by Petrenko, in order to expend a minimum of energy to clear certain surfaces of ice (see Petrenko ¶ 2).
Re claim 7, Chopra teaches the device according to claim 6. Petrenko further teaches wherein each heating section is assigned a controllable pipe (see Fig 34). Chopra, as modified, does not teach the limitation of wherein control is carried out by switchable valves. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that using valves for controlling heating falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical engineering. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Chopra, as modified, and integrated wherein control is carried out by switchable valves, in order for controlling heating.
Re claim 8, Chopra teaches the device according to claim 6. Petrenko further teaches wherein the pipes of the heating direction which serve as heating elements are provided separately from those pipes of the heat exchanger which carry the cooling medium (see Fig 34).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 8/7/2026
Prosecution Insights