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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the implied phrase “according to an embodiment”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11 – for clarity the word “the” after the word “causes” should be deleted.
Claims 2-18 are objected to due to dependence from claim 1.
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:
a pressure reducing device in claim 1
a refrigerant circulation device in claim 1
a cooling unit in claim 5
a gas supply device in claim 11
a heat medium circulation device in claim 15.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawano (US 9,683,762).
As to claim 1, Kawano discloses a cooling system 1B comprising:
a container 21 that includes an outflow port and an inflow port and stores liquid refrigerant;
a pressure reducing device 31 that is connected to the outflow port and is capable of adjusting pressure in the container 21 to be lower than an atmospheric pressure by sucking gas from the container 21 through the outflow port; and
a refrigerant circulation device 200 that includes a refrigerant flow path 15 to be connected to the pressure reducing device 31 and the inflow port and causes refrigerant in liquid form (i.e. the liquid refrigerant in storage 12) liquefied from the gas sucked from the container 21 to flow into the container through the inflow port;
the cooling system cooling a temperature control target with the refrigerant in the container (col. 9, lines 13-18).
As to claim 2, Kawano discloses the pressure reducing device including
a gas flow path 32 connected to the outflow port;
a gas suction pump 31 provided in the path 32 to suck gas from the container 21 in to the path 32; and
a reservoir tank 12 connected to path 32 that stores gas and liquid refrigerant; and
the refrigerant flow path 15 is connected to the reservoir tank 12.
As to claim 3, the liquid in tank 12 can flow to container 21 (Fig. 1B) and thus the pressure in tank 12 is higher that in the container 21. Also the tank 12 stores liquid refrigerant (Fig. 1B).
As to claim 4, the refrigerant circulation device includes a circulation pump 13 that sucks liquid refrigerant from tank 12.
As to claim 6, Kawano discloses use of a buffer tank 17 as claimed (Fig. 5).
As to claim 7, Kawano discloses a heat exchanger 14 in the refrigerant flow path.
As to claim 15, Kawano discloses a heat medium circulation device comprising a heat exchanger 26 in the container 21 (Fig. 1B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5, 8-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano as applied above.
As to claim 5, Kawano does not explicitly teach a cooling unit as claimed. However, Official Notice is taken that use of a cooling unit to cool discharged refrigerant gas is a common and typical feature of a cooling system that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the gas flow path of Kawano for the purpose of ensuring desired refrigerant temperatures are achieved.
As to claim 8, Kawano is silent regarding the positioning of the reservoir tank 12 in relation to the buffer tank 17. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the reference by having the tank 12 above the tank 17 as claimed, since applicant has not disclosed that having such a configuration provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the system would perform equally well with any reasonable tank configuration.
As to claims 9-10, Kawano teaches an electric pump but is silent regarding pump control or a flow valve with associated control. However, Official Notice is taken that providing a flow control valve as well as controlling pump speed and valve openings in response to detected parameters is a common and typical feature of a cooling system that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the pump of Kawano for the purpose of ensuring desired conditions are achieved.
As to claims 16-17, Kawano is silent regarding specific refrigerant properties. However, selection of a refrigerant with the specific claimed boiling point and GWP of a refrigerant is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that certain refrigerant properties will provide effective system operation. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a refrigerant with the claimed properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 and 18 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights