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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured to supply” appears to be in error for “is configured to supply”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: an R744 refrigerant formed of carbon dioxide is redundant since R744 refrigerant is carbon dioxide. 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: control device, i.e. (device [generic placeholder] for control [functional language]) in claim 1-15, 18-20.
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. In the case of control device, first/second control valve is found to be the corresponding structure from the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-13 and 17-19 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 2 recites the limitation “a first end of the fourth connection”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the first end of the fourth connection from claim 1. It is believed to be the same and that the limitation should read “the first end of the fourth connection”. Claims 3-13 and 17-19 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 2 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 3-13, and 17-19 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 3 recites the limitations “the internal heat-exchanger configured to exchange heat between the refrigerant supplied from the second heat-exchanger and the refrigerant supplied from the third heat-exchanger with each other, and to supply the refrigerant with a higher temperature among the heat-exchanged refrigerant to the third heat-exchanger”. This is unclear in that “exchange heat between” appears to be redundant with “with each other”. Additionally, the refrigerant with a higher temperature among the heat-exchanged refrigerant is unclear. It appears that Applicant intended for the refrigerant stream having a higher temperature resulting from the heat exchange from the refrigerant supplied from the second heat-exchanger and from the refrigerant supplied from the third heat-exchanger to be supplied to the third heat-exchanger. Claims 4-13 and 17-19 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 3 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation “a partial refrigerant”. It is not understood how a partial refrigerant would be discharged from the internal heat exchanger. It is believed Applicant intended a portion of the refrigerant.
Claims 7-11 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 7 recites the limitations “a first end” and “a second end” with respect to the ends of the connection lines earlier introduced. It is unclear if these are the same or different from the first end and second end introduced in claim 1. It is believed that they are the same and that each recitation should be “the first end” and “the second end”. Claims 8-11 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 7 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation “a partial refrigerant”. It is not understood how a partial refrigerant would be discharged/introduced. It is believed Applicant intended a portion of the refrigerant.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation “a partial refrigerant”. It is not understood how a partial refrigerant would be discharged/introduced. It is believed Applicant intended a portion of the refrigerant.
Claims 12-13 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 12 recites the limitations “a first end” and “a second end” with respect to the ends of the connection lines earlier introduced. It is unclear if these are the same or different from the first end and second end introduced in claim 1. It is believed that they are the same and that each recitation should be “the first end” and “the second end”. Claim 13 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 12 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation “an interiorly introduced refrigerant”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the refrigerant of claim 1. It is believed to be the same.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation “a second end” with respect to the end of the fifth connection line earlier introduced. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the second end introduced in claim 1. It is believed that it is the same and that the recitation should be “the second end”.
Claims 17-19 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 17 recites the limitation “a second end”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the second end introduced in claim 1. It is believed to be the same. Claims 18-19 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 17 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 18-19 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 18 recites the limitations “a first end” and “a second end” with respect to the ends of the connection lines earlier introduced. It is unclear if these are the same or different from the first end and second end introduced in claim 1. It is believed that they are the same and that each recitation should be “the first end” and “the second end”. Claim 19 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 18 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation “a partial refrigerant”. It is not understood how a partial refrigerant would be discharged/introduced. It is believed Applicant intended a portion of the refrigerant.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0185067) in view of Kim et al. ‘86 (US 2018/0117986).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a heat pump system for a vehicle, the heat pump system comprising:
a refrigerant line (see at least refrigerant line #11);
a first connection line (see at least line #21);
an air conditioner unit including a compressor (see at least compressor #19), a first heat-exchanger (see at least heat exchanger #12a), a second heat-exchanger (see at least heat exchanger #14), a first expansion valve (see at least expansion valve #15), and a third heat-exchanger (see at least heat exchanger #16) that are connected through the refrigerant line to circulate a refrigerant through the refrigerant line (see Figures, refrigerant flows through line #11 through each of the above); and
a chiller (see at least chiller #40) connected to the refrigerant line through the first connection line (see at least line #21 which connects chiller #40 to refrigerant line #11), the chiller configured to adjust a temperature of a coolant by heat-exchanging the coolant with the refrigerant supplied from the air conditioner unit (see at least paragraph [0064]),
wherein the air conditioner unit further includes:
a control device disposed on the refrigerant line between the first heat-exchanger and the second heat-exchanger (see at least gas injection device #30);
a second connection line having a first end connected to the refrigerant line between the compressor and the first heat-exchanger and having a second end connected to the control device (see at least line #27; paragraphs [0127]-[0128]: #34 is part of #30);
a third connection line having a first end connected to the refrigerant line between the first heat-exchanger and the second heat-exchanger and having a second end connected to the refrigerant line between the second heat-exchanger and the third heat-exchanger (see at least line #51);
a fourth connection line having a first end connected to the refrigerant line between the second heat-exchanger and the third heat-exchanger and having a second end connected to the refrigerant line at the compressor (see at least line #29/#32); and
a fifth connection line having a first end connected to the refrigerant line between the third heat-exchanger and the compressor and having a second end connected to the refrigerant line between the first heat-exchanger and the second heat-exchanger (see at least line #25).
Kim et al. does not disclose that the fourth connection line connects between the third heat-exchanger and the compressor.
However, there are only a finite number of connection points available to one having ordinary skill in the art in a vehicle heat pump system. In this regard, it is noted that Kim et al. ’86 teaches another vehicle heat pump system with a fourth connection line that connects between a second heat exchanger and a third heat exchanger and between the third heat exchanger and the compressor (see at least line #113).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Kim et al. with the fourth connection line connects between the third heat-exchanger and the compressor, since, as taught by Kim et al. ’86 such connection port is a suitable and known connection point for a vehicle heat pump system (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for mixing prior to entry into the compressor, thus reducing risk of slugging or cavitation.
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. further discloses wherein the second heat-exchanger and the third heat-exchanger are configured to cool or evaporate an interiorly introduced refrigerant (see at least paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. further discloses wherein:
a first end of the first connection line is connected to the refrigerant line between the second heat-exchanger and the first expansion valve (see at least top half of #21 which connects between heat exchanger #14 and expansion valve #15);
a second end of the first connection line is connected to the refrigerant line between the third heat-exchanger and the compressor (see at least bottom half of #21 which connects between heat exchanger #16 and compressor #19); and
a second end of the second connection line is connected to the refrigerant line between the first heat-exchanger and the second heat-exchanger (see at least end of #27 between #30 and #13, which lies between #12a and #14).
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. further discloses wherein the control device comprises:
a first control valve disposed on the refrigerant line between the first heat-exchanger and the second heat-exchanger (see at least valve(s) #35/#34); and
a second control valve disposed on the second connection line, the second control valve configured to control a flow of the refrigerant flowing through the second connection line (see at least valve #26).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ’86 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Durrani et al. (US 2017/0182867).
Regarding claim 20, Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ‘86 is silent regarding wherein the refrigerant is an R744 refrigerant formed of carbon dioxide.
It was, however, old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make use of carbon dioxide refrigerant in a heat pump system for a vehicle, as evidenced by Durrani et al. (see at least paragraph [0070]; [0077]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Kim et al. in view of Kim et al. ’86 with herein the refrigerant is an R744 refrigerant formed of carbon dioxide, since, as evidenced by Durrani et al., such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of making use of an abundant low-global warming potential refrigerant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 and 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In combination with the limitations of claim 1, the prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose the limitations of claim 2, particularly regarding the sixth connection line and third expansion valve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights