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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2026 was filed after the filing date of this Application on 01/02/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
“the shut-off member is motor-driven and is controlled by a control unit which comprises a signal input for a refrigerant sensor” of claim 31.
“the refrigerant sensor is arranged in or on the cooling device, for example on an outer side of the cooling device facing a switch cabinet interior, in an air inlet opening or an air outlet opening of an internal air circuit of the cooling device or in the internal air circuit of the cooling device, wherein the refrigerant sensor is connected wirelessly or by wire to the signal input of the control unit” of claim 32.
“at least one fan for acting on the condenser with air are accommodated separately from the evaporator in a separate housing” of claim 34.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
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 contains more than one paragraph. 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 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:
“expansion member” in claims 20, 24, 29-30, and 37.
“shut-off member” in claims 29-31, 33, and 35-37.
“motor-driven shut-off member” in claim 33.
“further shut-off member” in claim 36.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20-38 are 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.
Claims 20, 24, 29-30, and 37 recite the limitations “expansion member”. The term “expansion member” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the expansion function is performed. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of performing the expansion function. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claims.
Claims 29-31, 33, and 35-37 recite the limitations “expansion member”. The term “shut-off member” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the “shutting-off” function is performed. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of performing the shutting-off” function. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claims.
Claim 33 recites the limitations “motor-driven shut-off member”. The term “motor-driven shut-off member” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the “shutting-off” function is performed. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of performing the shutting-off” function. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitations “further shut-off member”. The term “further shut-off member” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the “shutting-off” function is performed. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of performing the shutting-off” function. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
Claims 21-23, 25-28, 32, 34, and 38 are also rejected due to dependency.
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 20-38 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the switchgear cabinet air conditioning” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the switchgear cabinet air conditioning” will be interpreted as -- a switchgear cabinet air conditioning --
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the air conditioning of an IT environment” in line 2 in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the air conditioning of an IT environment” will be interpreted as -- an air conditioning of an IT environment --
Claims 20-21, 25, and 27-28 recite the phrase “and/or” which renders the claims indefinite. This language is indefinite because it’s not clear what is being claimed and what the scope is. No person of ordinary skill in the art would know what “and/or” means with reasonable certainty. Therefore, the scope is unclear and for purposes of examination, the limitations that follow “and/or” will be considered optional.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the interior of the switch cabinet housing” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the interior of the switch cabinet housing” will be interpreted as -- an interior of a switch cabinet housing --
Regarding claims 20 and 32, the phrase "for example" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the emptying of the refrigerant circuit” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the emptying of the refrigerant circuit” will be interpreted as -- an emptying of the refrigerant circuit --
Claims 21, 26, and 29 recite the limitation “the refrigeration appliance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, the claims as recited are confusing because it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “refrigeration appliance” is referring to previously disclosed components such as the “cooling device”, or the “refrigerating machine”, or if it is referring to something else. More clarity is requested.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the external air circuit” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the external air circuit” will be interpreted as -- an external air circuit --
Claim 23 recites the limitation “a line section” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “a line section” will be interpreted as -- the line section --
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the introduction of the refrigerant” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the introduction of the refrigerant” will be interpreted as -- an introduction of the refrigerant --
Regarding claims 23, 25, 33, 35-36, and 38, the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 24, the term “substantially” is a relative 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. This term renders claim 24 indefinite because it is unclear what “substantially impermeable” is. Thus, as used to qualify the function of the expansion member when closed, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding claim 25, the term “maximum” is a relative 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. This term renders claim 25 indefinite because it is unclear what “maximum rotational speed” is. Thus, as used to qualify the rotational speed of the compressor, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the raising of the rotational speed of the compressor” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the raising of the rotational speed of the compressor” will be interpreted as -- a raising of a rotational speed of the compressor --
Regarding claim 27, the term “minimum” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimum” 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. This term renders claim 27 indefinite because it is unclear what “a predetermined minimum duration” is. Thus, as used to qualify the runtime of the compressor, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding claim 27, the term “substantially” is a relative 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. This term renders claim 27 indefinite because it is unclear what “substantially completely emptied of the refrigerant” is. Thus, as used to determine the runtime of the compressor, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the shutting off of a suction line of the compressor” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the shutting off of a suction line of the compressor” will be interpreted as -- a shutting off of a suction line of the compressor --
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the deactivation of the compressor” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the deactivation of the compressor” will be interpreted as -- a deactivation of the compressor --
Regarding claim 28, the phrase "optionally" 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(d).
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “an IT environment” which renders the claim indefinite in view of claim 20. Claim 20 from which claim 29 depends already discloses “an IT environment”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “IT environment” of claim 29 is referencing the previously disclosed “IT environment” of claim 20 or something entirely different. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “a switchgear cabinet housing” which renders the claim indefinite in view of claim 20. Claim 20 from which claim 29 depends discloses “a switch cabinet housing”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “switchgear cabinet housing” of claim 29 is referencing the previously disclosed “switch cabinet housing” of claim 20 or something entirely different. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “a cooling device” which renders the claim indefinite in view of claim 20. Claim 20 from which claim 29 depends already discloses “a cooling device”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “cooling device” of claim 29 is referencing the previously disclosed “cooling device” of claim 20 or something entirely different. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “a refrigerating machine with a refrigerant circuit, wherein the refrigerant circuit comprises a compressor, a condenser, an expansion member and an evaporator” which renders the claim indefinite in view of claim 20. Claim 20 from which claim 29 depends already discloses “a refrigerating machine of the cooling device, the refrigerating machine comprising a refrigerant circuit with a compressor, a condenser, an expansion member and an evaporator”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear if the disclosed components of claim 29 are referencing the previously disclosed components of claim 20 or entirely different ones. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “a feed of the evaporator” which renders the claim indefinite in view of claim 20. Claim 20 from which claim 29 depends already discloses “a feed of the evaporator”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “feed of the evaporator” of claim 29 is referencing the previously disclosed “feed of the evaporator” of claim 20 or something entirely different. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “a leakage of the refrigerant circuit” which renders the claim indefinite in view of claim 20. Claim 20 from which claim 29 depends already discloses “a leakage of the refrigerant circuit”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “leakage of the refrigerant circuit” of claim 29 is referencing the previously disclosed “leakage of the refrigerant circuit” of claim 20 or something entirely different. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “a pipeline system of the evaporator” which renders the claim indefinite in view of claim 20. Claim 20 from which claim 29 depends already discloses “a pipeline system of the evaporator”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “pipeline system of the evaporator” of claim 29 is referencing the previously disclosed “pipeline system of the evaporator” of claim 20 or something entirely different. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “a negative pressure” which renders the claim indefinite in view of claim 20. Claim 20 from which claim 29 depends already discloses “a negative pressure”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “negative pressure” of claim 29 is referencing the previously disclosed “negative pressure” of claim 20 or something entirely different. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “wherein the refrigerant circuit comprises … an expansion member …, wherein a feed of the evaporator comprises a shut-off member between the evaporator and the condenser” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because the claim seems to indicate that the disclosed “expansion member” and “shut-off member” are referencing two separate and distinct structures. However, in paragraph [0035] of the specification, Applicant discloses that “the expansion member 4 furthermore has the function of a shut-off member 11”. In other words, it is understood that the “expansion member” and the “shut-off member” are referring to the same exact structure. Therefore, the arrangement disclosed by the claim is not supported by the disclosure. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 36, the claim recites “wherein the further shut-off member is preferably arranged closer to the evaporator along the pipeline section” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because it is not entirely clear which structure is arranged further away from the disclosed “further shut-off member” relative to the evaporator. More clarity is requested.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “the at least one shut-off member” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the at least one shut-off member” will be interpreted as -- the shut-off member --
Claim 37 recites the limitation “the pipeline cross-section” and “the pipeline length” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “at least one of the pipeline cross-section and the pipeline length” will be interpreted as -- at least one of a pipeline cross-section and a pipeline length --
Regarding claim 37, the claim recites “the expansion member … and the shut-off member are connected to one another via a pipeline system of the refrigerant circuit” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because the claim seems to indicate that the disclosed “expansion member” and “shut-off member” are referencing two separate and distinct structures. However, in paragraph [0035] of the specification, Applicant discloses that “the expansion member 4 furthermore has the function of a shut-off member 11”. In other words, it is understood that the “expansion member” and the “shut-off member” are referring to the same exact structure. Therefore, the arrangement disclosed by the claim is not supported by the disclosure. More clarity is requested.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “an IT environment” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “an IT environment” will be interpreted as -- the IT environment --
Claim limitations “expansion member”, “shut-off member”, “motor-driven shut-off member”, and “further shut-off member” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 34 is also rejected due to dependency.
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.
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 20-24, 26, 29-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonn et al. (DE102015101022B3, herein after referred to as Nonn) in view of Weyna et al. (US 20210268875 A1, herein after referred to as Weyna).
Regarding claim 20, Nonn teaches a method (corresponds to the method of cooling described in paragraph [0026]) for operating a cooling device (cooling unit 4 Fig. 1) for a switchgear cabinet air conditioning (switch cabinet 2 Fig. 1) or an air conditioning (cooling unit 4 Fig. 1) of an IT environment (data center room 1 Fig. 1), for example a data centre (paragraph [0022]), the method comprises a switch cabinet housing (disclosed “frame” in paragraph [0034]).
Nonn teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the method comprises: A. operating a refrigerating machine of the cooling device, the refrigerating machine comprising a refrigerant circuit with a compressor, a condenser, an expansion member and an evaporator; B. detecting a leakage of the refrigerant circuit, in which refrigerant escapes from the refrigerant circuit; C. shutting off a feed of the evaporator between the evaporator and the condenser; and D. activating or maintaining the compressor activated, wherein a pipeline system of the evaporator, which is connected to the refrigerant circuit, is brought to a negative pressure with respect to an atmosphere in an interior of the switch cabinet housing or the IT environment”.
However, Weyna teaches a method (method 200 Fig. 2 corresponds to the method of Nonn) comprises: A. operating a refrigerating machine (corresponds to the vapour compression components of refrigeration system 10 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0051] where the leak detection is understood to be performed during operation of refrigeration system 10) of a cooling device (refrigeration system 10 corresponds to the cooling device of Nonn), the refrigerating machine comprising a refrigerant circuit (corresponds to the circuit formed by compressor 20, condenser 22, receiver 74, and evaporator 24 Fig. 1) with a compressor (compressor 20 Fig. 1), a condenser (condenser 22 Fig. 1), an expansion member (first valve 66 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0040]) and an evaporator (evaporator 24 Fig. 1); B. detecting a leakage of the refrigerant circuit (step 201 Fig. 2), in which refrigerant (disclosed “refrigerant” in paragraph [0051]) escapes from the refrigerant circuit (paragraph [0051]); C. shutting off (step 224 Fig. 2) a feed of the evaporator (evaporator inlet 60 Fig. 1) between the evaporator and the condenser (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0055]); and D. activating or maintaining the compressor activated (steps 210 and 220 Fig. 2), wherein a pipeline system of the evaporator (refrigerant line 69 Fig. 1), which is connected to the refrigerant circuit (Fig. 1), is brought to a negative pressure (step 230 Fig. 2 and paragraph [0057] where it is disclosed that the suction pressure is less than an ambient pressure within refrigerant line 69) with respect to an atmosphere (corresponds to the atmosphere inside interior volume 14 Fig. 1) in an interior (volume 14 Fig. 1) of a switch cabinet housing (the housing of conditioned space 12 Fig. 5 corresponds to the switch cabinet housing of Nonn) to mitigate refrigerant leaks within a refrigeration system (paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Nonn to include “the method comprises: A. operating a refrigerating machine of the cooling device, the refrigerating machine comprising a refrigerant circuit with a compressor, a condenser, an expansion member and an evaporator; B. detecting a leakage of the refrigerant circuit, in which refrigerant escapes from the refrigerant circuit; C. shutting off a feed of the evaporator between the evaporator and the condenser; and D. activating or maintaining the compressor activated, wherein a pipeline system of the evaporator, which is connected to the refrigerant circuit, is brought to a negative pressure with respect to an atmosphere in an interior of the switch cabinet housing or the IT environment” in view of the teachings of Weyna to mitigate refrigerant leaks within a refrigeration system.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach in which the activation or maintaining the compressor activated comprises an emptying of the refrigerant circuit (paragraph [0056] of Weyna where it is disclosed that compressor 20 evacuates the refrigerant from evaporator 24) in a line section of the refrigerant circuit (corresponds to the section of refrigerant line 69 located inside interior volume 14 Fig. 1 of Weyna) which is arranged in an internal air circuit of the refrigeration appliance (corresponds to the portion of the vapor compression system of refrigeration system 10 located inside interior volume 14 Fig. 1 of Weyna).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings teach in which refrigerant which is emptied from the line section of the refrigerant circuit arranged in the internal air circuit is transferred into a line section of the refrigerant circuit (corresponds to the refrigerant line section that accommodates receiver 46 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0056] of Weyna) arranged in an external air circuit (corresponds to the portion of the vapor compression system of refrigeration system 10 located outside interior volume 14 Fig. 1 of Weyna).
Regarding claim 23, and due to indefiniteness, the combined teachings teach in which the transfer of the refrigerant into the line section arranged in the external air circuit (paragraph [0056] of Weyna) comprises an introduction of the refrigerant into a buffer store (receiver 46 Fig. 1 of Weyna).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings teach in which, for shutting off the feed of the evaporator (step 214 Fig. 2 of Weyna), the expansion member is transferred into a closed position (disclosed “closed position” in paragraph [0055] of Weyna) which is completely impermeable to the refrigerant (paragraph [0055] of Weyna).
Regarding claim 26, the combined teachings teach in which the shutting off of the feed of the evaporator between the evaporator and the condenser (step 224 Fig. 2 of Weyna) comprises the shutting off of a line section of the refrigerant circuit (corresponds to the section of refrigerant line 69 located inside interior volume 14 Fig. 1 of Weyna) which is arranged in an external air circuit of the refrigeration appliance (corresponds to the portion of the vapor compression system of refrigeration system 10 located inside interior volume 14 Fig. 1 of Weyna).
Regarding claim 29, and due to indefiniteness, the combined teachings teach an assembly of a switchgear cabinet housing (control cabinets 3 Fig. 1 of Nonn) or an IT environment (data center room 1 Fig. 1 of Nonn), and a cooling device (cooling unit 4 Fig. 1 of Nonn) for the switchgear cabinet air conditioning (Fig. 1 of Nonn), in which the refrigeration appliance comprises a refrigerating machine (corresponds to the vapour compression components of refrigeration system 10 Fig. 1 of Weyna) with a refrigerant circuit (corresponds to the circuit formed by compressor 20, condenser 22, receiver 74, and evaporator 24 Fig. 1 of Weyna), wherein the refrigerant circuit comprises a compressor (compressor 20 Fig. 1 of Weyna), a condenser (condenser 22 Fig. 1 of Weyna), an expansion member (first valve 66 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0040] of Weyna) and an evaporator (evaporator 24 Fig. 1 of Weyna), wherein a feed of the evaporator (evaporator inlet 60 Fig. 1 of Weyna) comprises a shut-off member (first valve 66 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0040] of Weyna where first valve 66 is described as being able to function as a shut-off valve) between the evaporator and the condenser (Fig. 1 of Weyna), which shut-off member is configured to completely close the feed in the event of a leakage of the refrigerant circuit (paragraph [0055] of Weyna), wherein a pipeline system of the evaporator (refrigerant line 69 Fig. 1 of Weyna), which is connected to the refrigerant circuit (Fig. 1 of Weyna), has a negative pressure (paragraph [0057] of Weyna where it is disclosed that the suction pressure is less than an ambient pressure within refrigerant line 69) with respect to the atmosphere in the interior of the switchgear cabinet housing (paragraph [0057] of Weyna).
Regarding claim 30, the combined teachings teach in which the shut-off member is the expansion member (paragraph [0040] of Weyna).
Regarding claim 31, the combined teachings teach in which the shut-off member is motor-driven (paragraph [0040] of Weyna where a person skilled in the art would recognize that the disclosed “electronic expansion valve” would be actuated by a motor) and is controlled by a control unit (controller 80 Fig. 1 of Weyna) which comprises a signal input (disclosed “input communication channels” in paragraph [0048] of Weyna) for a refrigerant sensor (leak sensor 82 Fig. 1 of Weyna).
Regarding claim 33, the combined teachings teach which comprises a further, preferably motor-driven shut-off member (fourth valve 78 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0044] of Weyna where a person skilled in the art would recognize that the disclosed “electronic expansion valve” would be actuated by a motor) in a suction line of the compressor (refrigerant line 69 Fig. 1 of Weyna).
Claims 25, 27-28 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonn in view of Weyna as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Nakajima et al. (JP2019143876A, herein after referred to as Nakajima).
Regarding claim 25, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “in which the activation or maintaining the compressor activated comprises a raising of a rotational speed of the compressor, wherein the compressor is preferably operated at a maximum rotational speed”.
However, Nakajima teaches in which an activation (step ST10 Fig. 3 corresponds to the activation of Weyna) of a compressor (compressor 21 Fig. 2 corresponds to the compressor of Weyna) comprises a raising of a rotational speed of the compressor (paragraph [0058]), wherein the compressor is preferably operated at a maximum rotational speed (paragraph [0058] where the disclosed “50 rpm” corresponds to the safest maximum rotational speed of the compressor during pump-down operations) to recover the refrigerant to the outdoor unit quickly (paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “in which the activation or maintaining the compressor activated comprises a raising of a rotational speed of the compressor, wherein the compressor is preferably operated at a maximum rotational speed” in view of the teachings of Nakajima to recover the refrigerant to the outdoor unit quickly.
Regarding claim 27, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “in which, during the activation or maintaining the compressor activated, the compressor is kept activated either for a predetermined minimum duration or until a section of the refrigerant circuit, including the evaporator, arranged in the internal air circuit of the refrigeration appliance is completely or substantially completely emptied of the refrigerant”.
However, Nakajima teaches in which, during an activation (step ST10 Fig. 3 corresponds to the activation of Weyna) of a compressor (compressor 21 Fig. 2 corresponds to the compressor of Weyna), the compressor is kept activated for a predetermined minimum duration (disclosed “predetermined time tp1 in paragraph [0060]) to provide enough time for the suction pressure to reach a predetermined value (paragraph [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “in which, during the activation or maintaining the compressor activated, the compressor is kept activated either for a predetermined minimum duration or until a section of the refrigerant circuit, including the evaporator, arranged in the internal air circuit of the refrigeration appliance is completely or substantially completely emptied of the refrigerant” in view of the teachings of Nakajima to provide enough time for the suction pressure to reach a predetermined value.
Regarding claim 28, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “which, after the activation or maintaining the compressor activated, comprises a shutting off of a suction line of the compressor, via which suction line the compressor is connected to a return of the evaporator, and optionally a deactivation of the compressor”.
However, Nakajima teaches which, after an activation (step ST10 Fig. 3 corresponds to the activation of Weyna) of a compressor (compressor 21 Fig. 2 corresponds to the compressor of Weyna), comprises a shutting off (corresponds to when gas-side shut-off valve 26 Fig. 2 is closed as described in paragraph [0064]) of a suction line of the compressor (outdoor unit gas pipe 45 Fig. 2), via which suction line the compressor is connected to a return (gas pipe connection part 54 Fig. 2) of an evaporator (indoor heat exchanger 51 Fig. 2 corresponds to the evaporator of Weyna), and optionally a deactivation of the compressor (step ST15 Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “which, after the activation or maintaining the compressor activated, comprises a shutting off of a suction line of the compressor, via which suction line the compressor is connected to a return of the evaporator, and optionally a deactivation of the compressor” in view of the teachings of Nakajima to prevent the refrigerant evacuated from the evaporator to flow back in.
Regarding claim 34, the combined teachings teach in which at least the condenser, the compressor and at least one fan (condenser fan 58 Fig. 1 of Weyna) for acting on the condenser with air (paragraph [0060] of Weyna) are accommodated separately from the evaporator (Fig. 1 of Weyna).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the condenser, the compressor and the at least one fan are accommodated in a separate housing which is connected via two pipeline sections to the feed and the return of the evaporator”.
However, Nakajima teaches a condenser (outdoor heat exchanger 23 Fig. 2 corresponds to the condenser of Weyna), a compressor (compressor 21 Fig. 2 corresponds to the compressor of Weyna) and at least one fan (outdoor fan 28 Fig. 2 corresponds to the fan of Weyna) are accommodated in a separate housing (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Nakajima) which is connected via two pipeline sections (see below annotated Fig. 2 of Nakajima) to a feed (liquid pipe connection part 53 Fig. 2 corresponds to the evaporator feed of Weyna) and a return (gas pipe connection part 54 Fig. 2 corresponds to the evaporator return of Weyna) of an evaporator (indoor heat exchanger 51 Fig. 2 corresponds to the evaporator of Weyna).
PNG
media_image1.png
445
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the condenser, the compressor and the at least one fan are accommodated in a separate housing which is connected via two pipeline sections to the feed and the return of the evaporator” in view of the teachings of Nakajima to provide the different components of the outdoor unit in one compact structure.
Regarding claim 35, the combined teachings teach in which the pipeline section connected to the feed of the evaporator comprises the shut-off member (Fig. 1 of Weyna), wherein the shut-off member is preferably arranged closer to the evaporator than to the condenser along the pipeline section (Fig. 1 of Weyna).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonn in view of Weyna as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Asanuma et al. (US 20200049384 A1, herein after referred to as Asanuma).
Regarding claim 32, the combined teachings teach in which the refrigerant sensor is arranged in the internal air circuit of the cooling device (paragraph [0049] of Weyna).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the refrigerant sensor is connected wirelessly or by wire to the signal input of the control unit”.
However, Asanuma teaches wherein a refrigerant sensor (refrigerant leakage sensor 31 Fig. 1 corresponds to the refrigerant sensor of Weyna) is connected wirelessly (paragraph [0039]) or by wire (paragraph [0039]) to a signal input (corresponds to the signal input of controller 30 Fig. 1) of a control unit (controller 30 Fig. 1 corresponds to the control unit of Weyna) to provide a communication link between the control unit and the sensor (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “wherein the refrigerant sensor is connected wirelessly or by wire to the signal input of the control unit” in view of the teachings of Asanuma to provide a communication link between the control unit and the sensor.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonn in view of Weyna and Nakajima as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 20210131706 A1, herein after referred to as Yamada).
Regarding claim 36, the combined teachings teach in which the pipeline section connected to the return of the evaporator and the suction line of the compressor comprises a further shut-off member (fourth valve 78 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0044] of Weyna where a person skilled in the art would recognize that the disclosed “electronic expansion valve” would be actuated by a motor).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the further shut-off member is preferably arranged closer to the evaporator along the pipeline section”.
However, Yamada teaches wherein a further shut-off member (gas-side shutoff valve 58a Fig. 1 corresponds to the further shut-off member of Weyna) is preferably arranged closer to an evaporator (Fig. 1 where indoor heat exchanger 52a corresponds to the evaporator of Weyna) along a pipeline section (first branch pipe portion 6a Fig. 1 corresponds to the pipeline section of Weyna) to arrange the external shutoff valve unit in the air-conditioning target space together with the indoor unit (paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “wherein the further shut-off member is preferably arranged closer to the evaporator along the pipeline section” in view of the teachings of Yamada to arrange the external shutoff valve unit in the air-conditioning target space together with the indoor unit.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonn in view of Weyna as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Kanazawa et al. (US 20140318165 A1, herein after referred to as Kanazawa).
Regarding claim 37, and due to indefiniteness, the combined teachings teach in which the compressor, the condenser, the expansion member, the evaporator and the shut-off member are connected to one another via a pipeline system of the refrigerant circuit (refrigerant line 69, refrigerant line 56, refrigerant line 64a, refrigerant line 64b, and receiver 46 Fig. 1 of Weyna), wherein the pipeline system is conditioned such that the pipeline system is a buffer store (receiver 46 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0056] of Weyna where it is disclosed that the evacuated refrigerant is stored in receiver 46) for refrigerant compressed by the compressor (paragraph [0056] of Weyna) in the event of a leakage (step 201 Fig. 2 of Weyna) when the feed of the evaporator is shut off (paragraph [0056] of Weyna).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the pipeline system is conditioned with respect to its volume, in particular at least one of a pipeline cross-section and a pipeline length”.
However, Kanazawa teaches wherein a pipeline system (liquid refrigerant communication pipe 71, gas refrigerant communication pipe 72, outdoor unit refrigerant pipes 31, and large-diameter tube 30 Fig. 1 corresponds to the pipeline system of Weyna) is conditioned with respect to its volume (disclosed “capacity Vt” in paragraph [0059]), in particular a pipeline cross-section (paragraph [0060]) to accumulate excess refrigerant (paragraph [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “wherein the pipeline system is conditioned with respect to its volume, in particular at least one of a pipeline cross-section and a pipeline length” in view of the teachings of Kanazawa to accumulate excess refrigerant.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonn in view of Weyna as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 5664428, herein after referred to as Sugiyama).
Regarding claim 38, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “in which the compressor is arranged in the internal air circuit, in a housing in which at least the evaporator and the compressor are arranged, wherein the housing is preferably formed independently of a further housing in which the condenser and the external air circuit are arranged, and wherein the housing with the internal air circuit is arranged in the IT environment and the further housing with the external air circuit is arranged outside the IT environment”.
However, Sugiyama teaches in which a compressor (compressor 8 Fig. 3 corresponds to the compressor of Weyna) is arranged in an internal air circuit (indoor unit 1 Figs.1 and 3 corresponds to the internal air circuit of Weyna), in a housing (housing 1A Fig. 3) in which at least an evaporator (indoor heat exchanger 6 Fig. 3 corresponds to the evaporator of Weyna) and the compressor are arranged (Fig. 3), wherein the housing is preferably formed independently of a further housing (Fig. 1 where the housing of outdoor unit 2 corresponds to the further housing) in which a condenser (referring to Figs. 1 and 3, a person skilled in the art would recognize that outdoor unit 2 would be provided with a condenser so that the refrigerant compressed by compressor 8 would be condensed) and an external air circuit (Fig. 1 where outdoor unit 2 corresponds to the external air circuit of Weyna) are arranged (Fig. 1), and wherein the housing with the internal air circuit is arranged in an IT environment (Col. 3 lines 47-53 where the disclosed “room” corresponds to the IT environment of Nonn) and the further housing with the external air circuit is arranged outside the IT environment (Col. 3 lines 47-53 where the disclosed “outside of the house” corresponds to the outside of the IT environment of Nonn) to provide a smaller and lighter outdoor unit (Col. 6 lines 24-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “in which the compressor is arranged in the internal air circuit, in a housing in which at least the evaporator and the compressor are arranged, wherein the housing is preferably formed independently of a further housing in which the condenser and the external air circuit are arranged, and wherein the housing with the internal air circuit is arranged in the IT environment and the further housing with the external air circuit is arranged outside the IT environment” in view of the teachings of Sugiyama to provide a smaller and lighter outdoor unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights