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 .
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“reservoir” of the other cooling circuit of claim 3 is not shown
“a high-pressure valve”, “a storage tank”, “a medium-pressure bypass” and “a medium-pressure valve” of claim 10 are not shown.
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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification uses the term “supercool” at at least three instances in [0019] and [0020]. Supercooling is the process of cooling a liquid below its freezing temperature without solidification. That cannot be the case here. The examiner suggests replacing “supercool” with –subcool--.
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.
The following limitation(s) is/are 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 means or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the means or generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“control device of the test chamber being used to control the temperature in the test space” includes the generic/nonce term “device” coupled with the function of “control”. A return to the specification does not provide structure for accomplishing the claimed function.
“temperature control device” (found in claim 18) includes the generic/nonce term “device” coupled with the function of “to establish a temperature in a temperature range of -20°C to +180°C”. While the claim provides for a cooling device including a cooling circuit said circuit cannot achieve the high end of said temperature range. A return to the specification provides a heater. Therefor the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof. Further note that claim 19 provides said structure and thus is not interpreted under §112f
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 1-20 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.
The limitation “a control device” recited in at least claims 1 and 18 was interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) above but the specification fails to provide the for the sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefor applicant has failed to convey possession of the claimed invention.
Claims depending form a rejected claim are rejected due to their 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 1-20 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.
The limitation “a control device” recited in at least claims 1 and 18 was interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) above but the specification fails to provide the for the sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefor the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 4 recites “at least at a temperature of < -50°C” however it is unclear how “at least” is intended to be read. For example at least the range “<-50°C” would also include any temperature range. Which is to say ‘at least’ the explicit range as well as any other range. Secondarily the range <-50°C is unbounded at the bottom end (other than by absolute zero). Thus the claimed range include ranges where the system is non-operable (e.g. near absolute zero) thus the metes and bounds of the range is also unclear.
Claim 7 recites “supercool” which is unclear. Supercooling is the process of cooling a liquid below its freezing temperature without solidification. That cannot be the case here and thus the claim scope is not clear. The examiner suggests replacing “supercool” with –subcool--.
Claim 20 recites “the non-fluorinated refrigerant” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 18 introduces “carbon dioxide as a refrigerant” thus antecedent basis is not clear. Claim 20 will be read as –the carbon dioxide refrigerant is pure carbon dioxide--.
Claims depending form a rejected claim are rejected due to their 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haack et al (US 11,162,714) in view of Mitra et al (US 2010/0132399).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Haack disclose a method for conditioning air in a test space of a test chamber, in particular a climate chamber, for receiving test material, the test space (14) being configured to be sealed from an environment and temperature-insulated (2:54-57), a cooling device (10) of a temperature control device of the test chamber, which comprises a cooling circuit (11) a heat exchanger (13) in the test space, a compressor (16), a condenser (17), and an expansion valve (36) downstream of the compressor in a flow direction of the refrigerant, being used to establish a temperature in a temperature range of -20 °C to +180 °C (-60 °C to +180 °C recited throughout the disclosure; range is inclusive of claimed range and moreover recites with sufficient specificity the range which substantially overlaps and is predictably controlled to a user set point) within the test space, a control device of the test chamber being used to control the temperature in the test space (7:14-22),
wherein
another cooling circuit (12) of the cooling device with another refrigerant, the heat exchanger (13) in the test space, another compressor (27) another heat exchanger (15) and another expansion valve (28) is used to establish the temperature within the test space.
Haack lacks CO2 refrigerant and a gas cooler. Haack lacks dual compressors on the circuit. Mitra discloses a refrigeration circuit utilizing CO2 refrigerant and having a gas cooler (40) and high and low pressure compressors (20b and 20a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haack with a CO2 refrigerant utilizing a gas cooler and dual compressors in order to utilize a natural refrigerant having a low GWP (GWP of 1) and operate in the transcritical regime.
Regarding claim 2, Haack discloses another bypass (25) with at least one other valve (20) and the other heat exchanger (15) is formed in the cooling circuit (11) the other bypass being connected to a high-pressure side downstream of the gas cooler (17 of Haack as modified above is a gas cooler) and upstream of the expansion valve (36) and to a low-pressure side downstream of the heat exchanger (13) and upstream of the low-pressure compressor (16 of Haack as modified above includes both a high and low pressure stage compressors) refrigerant being metered into the low-pressure side via the other valve, and the other refrigerant of the other cooling circuit (15 is a cascade heat exchanger between both circuits) being cooled in the other heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 3, Haack as modified discloses the method according to claim 1 and further where the other cooling circuit (12) is not operated at higher temperatures, e.g. above -20°C (8:31-41). Haack lacks a reservoir. The examiner takes official notice that reservoirs within refrigeration circuits are old and well known, e.g. accumulators and receivers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haack with one or more reservoirs (e.g. both an accumulator and a receiver) in order to store refrigerating capacity, prevent liquid suction at the compressor, and accommodate variations in operating conditions. Moreover as the other cooling circuit is in an ‘off’ condition at temperatures above -20°C but is still in heat exchange communication the refrigerant will further naturally circulate and accumulate within the reservoir(s).
Regarding claim 4, Haack discloses the other compressor (27) is operated at least at a temperature of < -50 °C within the test space (“-70°C to -20°C”; 8:37).
Regarding claim 5, Haack and Mitra disclose the cooling circuit has an internal heat exchanger (60 as provided by Mitra which is an economizer type heat exchanger provided with the modification at claim 1) connected to a high-pressure side of the cooling circuit downstream of the gas cooler (40 of Mitra being analogous to 17 of Haack) and upstream of the expansion valve, the internal heat exchanger being coupled to a medium-pressure bypass (12 of Mitra) of the cooling circuit, the medium-pressure bypass being connected to the high-pressure side downstream of the internal heat exchanger or the gas cooler and upstream of the expansion valve and to a medium-pressure side of the cooling circuit upstream of the high-pressure compressor and downstream of the low- pressure compressor (bypass line is connected between high and low pressure stages in Mitra) a second expansion valve (65) being used to meter refrigerant from the high-pressure side into the medium-pressure side via the internal heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 6, Haack and Mitra further disclose the second expansion valve (65 of Mitra) refrigerant is metered from the high-pressure side into the medium-pressure side via the internal heat exchanger (60 of Mitra) in such a manner that the refrigerant becomes fully gaseous in the internal heat exchanger and/or the refrigerant located in the medium-pressure side is cooled (this is the function of an economizer).
Regarding claim 7, Haack and Mitra disclose the internal heat exchanger (60 of Mitra) is used to subcool the refrigerant of the high-pressure side (Mitra discusses operation in both the transcritical and subcritical regimes where the cycle is subcritical and the gas cooler 40 performs as a condenser further cooling of the condensed liquid refrigerant within 62 is a subcooling operation).
Regarding claim 8, Haack and Mitra further disclose refrigerant is metered from the high-pressure side into the medium-pressure side via the second expansion valve (65 provided by Mitra) in such a manner that a mass flow of refrigerant at the high-pressure compressor (20b) is always greater than a mass flow of refrigerant at the low-pressure compressor (20a; as the high stage compressor receives all the flow from the low stage compressor + flow from the bypass/economizer line 12 it necessarily has a higher mass flow).
Regarding claim 9, Haack and Mitra disclose the second expansion valve (65 of Mitra) is controlled as a function of a pressure and/or a temperature of the refrigerant located in the medium-pressure side ([0023] of Mitra).
Regarding claim 10, As was noted above the features of claim 10 are not shown in the drawings. [0023] of the instant specification does discuss the feature. It is also noted that the metering of gaseous refrigerant is in the form of a contingent limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP 2111.04 II.
Nonetheless, Mitra discloses a high-pressure valve (75) of the cooling circuit disposed downstream of the gas cooler is used to meter gaseous and/or liquid refrigerant into a storage tank (70) for refrigerant, the storage tank being connected to a medium-pressure side of the cooling circuit upstream of the high-pressure compressor and downstream of the low-pressure compressor (all of said components are connected).
Haack and Mitra lack a medium pressure bypass associated with a storage tank. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known for flash tank type economizers (which are storage tanks) to meter to interstage compression, i.e. between high and low compressor stages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haack with a flash tank type economizer with interstage injection in order to economize the refrigerant flow.
Regarding claim 11, Haack and Mitra the cooling circuit is operated in a thermodynamically subcritical or transcritical operating state (Mitra discloses both transcritical and subcritical operating regimes as was modified at claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Haack and Mitra disclose a second bypass (14 of Mitra) with at least a third expansion valve (85 of Mitra [0026] last sentence states that 85 is an electronic expansion valve) is formed in the cooling circuit, the second bypass being connected to a high-pressure side downstream of an internal heat exchanger (60 of Mitra) or the gas cooler (40 of Mitra) and upstream of the expansion valve (55 or 75 of Mitra) and to a low-pressure side downstream of the heat exchanger (50 of Mitra) and upstream of the low-pressure compressor (20a of Mitra), a suction-gas temperature and/or a suction-gas pressure of the refrigerant on the low-pressure side of the cooling circuit upstream of the low-pressure compressor being controlled by metering refrigerant into the low-pressure side via the third expansion valve.
Regarding claim 16, Haack as modified further discloses a non-fluorinated refrigerant is used as the refrigerant in the cooling circuit (CO2 refrigerant provided by Mitra at modification at claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Haack discloses the temperature control device is used to establish a temperature in a temperature range of -50 °C to +180 °C within the test space (-60 °C to +180 °C recited throughout the disclosure; range is inclusive of claimed range and moreover recites with sufficient specificity the range which substantially overlaps and is predictably controlled to a user set point).
Regarding claim 19, Haack discloses the temperature control device comprises a heating device having a heater and a heating heat exchanger in the test space (8:60-65).
Regarding claim 20, Haack and Mitra disclose the non-fluorinated/CO2 refrigerant is pure carbon dioxide (Mitra discloses the refrigerant is CO2).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haack et al (US 11,162,714), in view of Mitra et al (US 2010/0132399), and in view of Okaichi et al (US 2013/0036757).
Regarding claim 13, Haack as modified discloses the method according to claim 11, but lacks a bypass as claimed. Okaichi discloses a control bypass (130) having at least one control valve (131) is formed in the cooling circuit, the control bypass being connected to a high-pressure side downstream of the high-pressure compressor (101) and upstream of the gas cooler (102) and to a low- pressure side downstream of the heat exchanger (104) and upstream of the low- pressure compressor (105), a suction-gas temperature and/or a suction-gas pressure of the refrigerant on the low-pressure side of the cooling circuit upstream of the low- pressure compressor being controlled and/or a difference in pressure between the high-pressure side and the low-pressure side of the cooling circuit being equalized by metering refrigerant into the low-pressure side via the control valve ([0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haack with the bypass of Okaichi in order to smooth the transition from off to on operation.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haack et al (US 11,162,714), in view of Mitra et al (US 2010/0132399), and in view of Kritsky et al (US 7,628,026)
Regarding claim 14, Haack as modified discloses the method of claim 1 but lacks a second heat exchanger in the test space for the purpose of dehumidification. Kritsky discloses two heat exchangers at a space including a dehumidifier bypass of the cooling circuit, which comprises a dehumidifier valve (TXV for heat exchanger 52 shown in figure 3) and a second heat exchanger (52) in the test space, is used to dehumidify air in the test space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haack with the second heat exchanger for the purpose of dehumidification in parallel with the primary heat exchanger as taught by Kritsky in order to bring in fresh air to the space at an acceptable humidity level.
Regarding claim 15, Haack as modified further discloses the dehumidifier bypass is connected to a high-pressure side of the cooling circuit downstream of the gas cooler and upstream of the expansion valve (bypass split as provided by Kritsky is down stream of the condenser and upstream of expansion valve of room coil 59) and to a low-pressure side of the cooling circuit downstream of the heat exchanger (bypass of Kritsky rejoins downstream of 59 which is analogous to the heat exchanger) and upstream of the low-pressure compressor, refrigerant being metered from the high-pressure side into the low-pressure side via the dehumidifier valve (“TXV” of Kritsky) in such a manner that the second heat exchanger is cooled.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ikarashi et al (US 2024/0027104) cascade arrangement
Zahrt (US 12,638,377) test chamber
Trieskey (US 6,460,355) test chamber
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights