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 09/17/2024, 07/17/2025 and 02/26/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7-8 are to an apparatus but there are method steps. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite or unclear, See MPEP 2173.059(p), because, the limitations such as "the characteristic curve is changed from a linear characteristic curve to a characteristic curve” etc..., whereby the italicized claim limitations are not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the operator of the controller, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC §112
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.
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: “orifice adjusting system” in claim 1.
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.
Claim limitation “orifice adjusting system” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “orifice adjusting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
An orifice adjusting system treated as meaning a two-way or three-way valve (5) and by an actuator. See par. 18.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
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 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pipe" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose it is considered as – the pipe system – to be consistent with the previous term.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second temperature" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the communication link" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the communication link" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 and 11-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafei et al (US 7769493 B2) in view of SCHNEIDER et al (US 20220107033).
In regards to claim 1, Elshafei discloses a cold exchange system (HVAC systems; pars. 4-5) comprising: one or more thermal energy exchangers (heat exchangers; par. 4) connected to a pipe system (a piping system; par. 18) distributing a refrigerant (par. 4); a control system (10) associated with at least one of the one or more thermal energy exchangers (par. 4), the control system (10) comprising: an orifice adjusting system (a valve in a piping system; par. 18) including a valve (par. 18) and an actuator (actuator; par. 56), the valve comprising a flow chamber (implicit) with an adjustable orifice in the pipe (par. 18); a position sensor (a valve stem position sensor terminal 26) to sense a position of the adjustable orifice and/or the actuator and generate a signal indicative of the sensed position (par. 21); a controller (central processing unit 32) in communication with the orifice adjusting system and the position sensor (par. 20); wherein the orifice adjusting system adjusts the adjustable orifice in response to a control signal (pars. 19-20); wherein the control system (10) uses a software-wise change of a characteristic curve (Fig. 2; par. 18, 27 and 37) of the orifice adjusting system; and the controller (32) compares the signal (comparing the input signal) to a set position of the adjustable orifice (valve flow characteristics) and generates the control signal (generating an output signal) based on the comparison (refer to page 5, col.1).
Elshafei fails to explicitly teach wherein the position sensor operates using a static measurement principle. SCHNEIDER teaches wherein the position sensor (Hall sensor 190) operates using a static measurement principle (pars. 25 and 42).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elshafei such that the position sensor comprises an inductor as taught by SCHNEIDER in order to precisely detecting of the position can be performed as a result (refer to par.19).
In regards to claim 2, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the position sensor comprises an inductor. SCHNEIDER teaches wherein the position sensor (corresponding to Hall sensor 190) comprises an inductor (150).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elshafei such that the position sensor comprises an inductor as taught by SCHNEIDER in order to precisely detecting of the position can be performed as a result (refer to par.19).
In regards to claim 3, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, SCHNEIDER teaches wherein the inductor (150) envelopes a moveable portion (valve needle 120) of at least one of the adjustable orifice and the actuator (refer to par. 45).
In regards to claim 4, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Elshafei teaches wherein: the position sensor (26) comprises an amplifier (AD converter 36) electrically connected to the inductor; and the amplifier (36) is configured to amplify a current signal received from the inductor and generate the signal (refer to pars. 21, 33 and 36).
In regards to claim 5, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Elshafei teaches wherein: the position sensor comprises an amplifier electrically connected to the inductor and an analog-to-digital converter (AD converter 36) electrically connected to the amplifier; the amplifier amplifies a current signal received from the inductor and provide the amplified signal to the analog-to-digital converter; and the analog-to-digital converter generates the signal in digital form (refer to pars. 21, 33 and 36).
In regards to claim 6, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Elshafei teaches wherein: the position sensor comprises an amplifier electrically connected to the inductor and a sigma-delta converter (AD converter 36) electrically connected to the amplifier; the amplifier amplifying a current signal received from the inductor and transmit the amplified signal to the sigma-delta converter (refer to pars. 21, 33 and 36). ; and the sigma-delta converter generating the signal in digital form in response to receiving the amplified signal (refer to pars. 21 and 36).
In regards to claim 7, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Elshafei teaches wherein: the characteristic curve is changed from a linear characteristic curve to a characteristic curve (Fig. 2) different from the linear characteristic curve, or vice versa; the controller (32) comprises a non-volatile memory storing a firmware (refer to pars. 25 and 30); and the software-wise change of the characteristic curve of the orifice adjusting system uses the firmware of the controller (refer to par. 27 and 30).
In regards to claim 8, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Elshafei teaches wherein: the characteristic curve (Fig. 2) is changed from an equal-percentage characteristic curve to a characteristic curve different from the equal-percentage characteristic curve, or vice versa; the controller (32) comprises a non-volatile memory storing a firmware (refer to pars. 25 and 30); and the software-wise change of the characteristic curve of the orifice adjusting system is implemented using the firmware of the controller (refer to pars. 27 and 30).
In regards to claim 11, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Elshafei teaches wherein the control system (10) comprises a communication link (communication links 64 and 66) to a central controller (a host process control computer 60).
In regards to claim 12, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11. Further, Elshafei teaches wherein the controller (32) communicates at least one of: the signal indicative of the sensed position, or a value derived from the signal indicative of the sensed position, to the central controller (60) via the communication link (64).
Claims 9-10 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafei et al (US 7769493 B2) in view of SCHNEIDER et al (US 20220107033), further in view of CERNEKA et al. (EP 3869292 A1).
In regards to claim 9, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Elshafei teaches wherein: the control system (10) comprises a first temperature sensor (refer to par. 20; sensor signals from transducers, such as a fluid temperature transmitter), but fails to explicitly teach the first temperature sensor provided along the pipe system in a position in front of the at least one thermal energy exchanger; and the first temperature sensor senses a supply temperature of the refrigerant entering the at least one thermal energy exchanger.
CERNEKA teaches wherein the first temperature sensor (inlet temperature sensor 30) provided along the pipe system (Fig. 1) in a position in front of the at least one thermal energy exchanger; and the first temperature sensor (30) senses a supply temperature (inlet temperature value) of the refrigerant entering the at least one thermal energy exchanger (24).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elshafei such that the first temperature sensor provided along the pipe system in a position in front of the at least one thermal energy exchanger; and the first temperature sensor senses a supply temperature of the refrigerant entering the at least one thermal energy exchanger as taught by SCHNEIDER in order to optimal control performance and energy efficiency (refer to par. 5 of SCHNEIDER).
In regards to claim 10, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Elshafei teaches wherein: the control system (10) comprises a second temperature sensor (refer to par. 20; sensor signals from transducers, such as a fluid temperature transmitter), but fails to explicitly teach the second temperature sensor provided along the pipe system in a position behind the at least one thermal energy exchanger; and the second temperature sensor senses a return temperature of the refrigerant leaving the at least one thermal energy exchanger.
CERNEKA teaches wherein the second temperature sensor (outlet temperature sensor 32) provided along the pipe system (Fig. 1) in a position behind the at least one thermal energy exchanger; and the second temperature sensor (32) senses a return temperature (outlet temperature value) of the refrigerant leaving the at least one thermal energy exchanger (24).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elshafei such that the second temperature sensor provided along the pipe system in a position behind the at least one thermal energy exchanger; and the second temperature sensor senses a return temperature of the refrigerant leaving the at least one thermal energy exchanger as taught by SCHNEIDER in order to optimal control performance and energy efficiency (refer to par. 5 of SCHNEIDER).
In regards to claim 13, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 9. Further, Elshafei teaches wherein: the controller (32) is in communicative connection with the first and second temperature sensors (refer to par. 20); the first and second temperature sensors are configured to output temperature signals and to send them to the controller (refer to par. 20; sensor signals from transducers, such as a fluid temperature transmitter); the controller (32) receives the temperature signals from the temperature sensors (refer to par. 20) and determines a differential temperature as a function of the temperature signals (refer to par. 20); and the controller (32) communicates the differential temperature to the central controller (60) via the communication link (64).
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafei et al (US 7769493 B2) in view of SCHNEIDER et al (US 20220107033), further in view of Parker et al. (US 20220128278 A1).
In regards to claim 14, Elshafei as modified meets the claim limitations as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 14.
Parker teaches wherein the refrigerant comprises at least one fluid chosen from the group consisting of: a R-401A refrigerant, a R-404A refrigerant, a R-406A refrigerant, a R-407A refrigerant, a R-407C refrigerant, a R-408A refrigerant, a R-409A refrigerant, a R-410A refrigerant, a R-438A refrigerant, a R-500 refrigerant, a R-502 refrigerant, and ammonia (refer to par. 19).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elshafei such that wherein the refrigerant comprises at least one fluid such as a R-410A refrigerant, and ammonia as taught by Parker in order to provide non-flammable refrigerant and avoids environmentally undesirable refrigerant (refer to par. 19 of Parker).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763