DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a switching system configured to control a flow direction of incompressible fluid; a separator device configured to separate working fluid from incompressible fluid.
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 12-16, 18, and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radermacher (US 2022/0010934) in view of Lemofouet (US 8,567,183).
As to claim 1, Radermacher teaches a system comprising:
at least two NIC systems 96/98 comprising one or more chambers and cooling means (Fig. 9), each NIC system being constructed to increase a pressure of a working fluid in the one or more chambers via an incompressible fluid acting as a liquid piston, the cooling means being constructed to remove from the working fluid at least some heat generated by the increased pressure (Fig. 8);
one or more pumps coupled to the NIC systems 96/98 and constructed to pump the incompressible fluid to or from the chambers (Figs. 1-2 and 9); and
a switching system between the one or more pumps and the NIC systems 96/98 an constructed to control a flow direction of the incompressible fluid within the respective NIC system (Fig. 9; paragraph 102).
Radermacher teaches an oil tank 152, but does not explicitly teach that each NIC system includes a staging vessel between the switching system and the chambers and having a greater volume than the chambers in the manner as claimed. However, Lemofouet teaches using a staging vessel B.6 which supplies all of the working fluid for multiple NIC chambers (Fig. 11; col. 13, line 60 – col. 14, line 28). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Radermacher to incorporate a staging vessel as claimed and taught by Lemofouet because it would provide a degree of freedom for system design capable of operating at a higher capacity (Lemofouet , col. 14, lines 14-18).
As to claim 2, the modified reference is silent as to the specific volume of the staging vessel. However the specific volume is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a certain volume will ensure reliable and effective system operation. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a staging vessel having a volume that is at least two times the volume of the chambers.
As to claim 3, Radermacher teaches the cooling means 53 in thermal communication with the compression chambers (Fig. 9; paragraph 72) and thus not in thermal communication with the staging vessel of the modified system.
As to claim 4, Radermacher teaches a thermodynamic fluid circuit 134 comprising a first heat exchanger (suction line HX), an expansion device, and a second heat exchanger 138 connected in the manner as claimed (Fig. 13).
As to claim 5, Radermacher teaches the switching system comprising a hydraulic switch (paragraphs 100 and 102); the first exchanger configured to operate as a condenser (Fig. 13), and the second exchanger 138 to operate as an evaporator (Fig. 13).
As to claim 6, Radermacher teaches a pressure vessel 144 as claimed (paragraph 81).
As to claim 7, Radermacher teaches CO2 working fluid and incompressible fluid that is oil see abstract.
As to claim 8, Radermacher teaches a controller 139 as claimed, wherein the controller controls the switching system to switch between suction and compression for each NIC system by reversing incompressible fluid flow between first and second ends of the chambers (Figs. 2B and 9; paragraph 84).
As to claim 12, Radermacher teaches injecting working fluid and incompressible fluid into the chambers (Fig. 9).
As to claim 13, Radermacher teaches a suction line exchanger that operates as an economizer to cool the pressurized working fluid (Fig. 13).
As to claim 14, Radermacher teaches a separator as claimed (paragraph 108).
As to claims 15-16, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejections above.
As to claim 18, Radermacher does not explicitly teach first and second pluralities of three-way switches as claimed. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the reference by having a the claimed switch configuration, since applicant has not disclosed that having a particular switching construction solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the system would perform equally well with any reasonable switch configuration capable of provided the desired flow of incompressible fluid.
As to claims 22-27, the modified apparatus of Radermacher teaches most of the claimed limitations as discussed in the rejections above, and also includes a mechanical piston (Radermacher, Fig. 8) and motor (Lemofouet, motor A.1) as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights