DETAILED ACTION
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 because the drawings obscure the structure of sealing member and the claimed coupling portion. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is 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.
In regard to claim 1, the recitations of claim 1 are indefinite for improper use of 112(f) language, see claim interpretation section below.
The recitation, “replaceably coupled” is indefinite as it is unclear what structure is required of the recited coupling. The specification does not define the structure required to meet the term and one is left to speculate.
The recitation, “the inside” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the other side” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “wherein the magnetic transfer unit forms a plurality of cartridges” is indefinite since the language of the recitation implies that the unit provides the plurality of cartridges, but this is inconsistent with the disclosure which shows that the unit itself has a plurality of cartridges.
The recitation, “the intended use” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “of the cartridge” is indefinite since there are a plurality of cartridges and it is unclear which of the plurality is being referred to.
The recitation, “that fixes” is indefinite since it is unclear what structure or function is being required.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “to improve watertightness performance” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what features, characteristics, or structure is being required by the recitation and there is no way to discern what the feature must be improved relative to.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “A type cartridge applied to an operating temperature of 0 to 10C” is indefinite since there is no way to discern the structure required by the recitation of an “A type cartridge” except that it has an operating temperature of the recited range and therefore the recitation is indefinite for being unclear what is required by the recitation of “A type”. Further the recitation is indefinite for apparently reciting a step rather than a structure (“applied to”) and it is unclear what structure the step recitation requires.
The recitation, “B type cartridge applied to an operating temperature of 10 to 40C” is indefinite since there is no way to discern the structure required by the recitation of an “B type cartridge” except that it has an operating temperature of the recited range and therefore the recitation is indefinite for being unclear what is required by the recitation of “B type”. Further the recitation is indefinite for apparently reciting a step rather than a structure (“applied to”) and it is unclear what structure the step recitation requires.
The recitation, “C type cartridge applied to an operating temperature of 40 to 60C” is indefinite since there is no way to discern the structure required by the recitation of an “C type cartridge” except that it has an operating temperature of the recited range and therefore the recitation is indefinite for being unclear what is required by the recitation of “C type”. Further the recitation is indefinite for apparently reciting a step rather than a structure (“applied to”) and it is unclear what structure the step recitation requires.
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “is used as a four-season household air conditioner” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what structure the generic recitation of use. Further, there is no way to determine what structure is required of the identification of “four-season household air conditioner” includes and excludes.
The recitation, “as needed” is indefinite what determines what is needed and what structure is required thereby.
The recitation, “as needed by being replaced with a cartridge type according to an operating temperature range.” is indefinite since 4 mentions operating temperature range already and it is unclear if this is the same or other range. Further the recitation is improper for reciting a step in a system claim and it is unclear what structure is required of the recitation.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “the plurality of cartridges” is indefinite for reintroducing cartridges anew improperly and it is unclear why the recitation is not --the plurality of the cartridges--.
In regard to claim 7, the recitation, “a temperature range that matches a temperature range appropriate for user’s desired temperature setting” is indefinite since claim 1 already recites a temperature range and it is unclear how these newly recited ranges relate thereto. Further it is unclear what makes the recited range “appropriate”.
The recitation of “the cartridge” is not consistent with the plurality recited in claim 1.
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.
Claim limitation “magnetic transfer unit” invokes 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 specification merely uses the term and never defines what structure is required by the term. 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.
Claim limitation “magnetic field applying unit” invokes 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 specification merely uses the term and never defines what structure is required by the term. 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.
Claim limitation “sealing member” invokes 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 specification merely uses the term and never defines what structure is required by the term. 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.
Claim limitation “coupling portion” invokes 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 specification merely uses the term and never defines what structure is required by the term. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zia (US 2019/0170407). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, A cartridge replaceable magnetic cooling system (see whole disclosure, including fig. 4), comprising: a main body case (112); a magnetic transfer unit (interpreted as plurality of 104) that is replaceably coupled (interpreted as can be put in and out of the case) within the main body case (112) and receives magnetocaloric materials (in 104; para. 24) so that heat is exchanged with a heat transfer fluid (cooling fluid, para. 22) passing through an inside (inside 112) through an inlet (114) on one side (see fig. 4) and an outlet (116) on an other side (see fig. 4); and magnetic field applying units (102, 103) that are disposed spaced apart from each other on front and rear sides (see figures) of the main body case (112) and selectively applies a magnetic field to the magnetocaloric materials (in 104), wherein the magnetic transfer unit (interpreted as plurality of 104) forms a plurality of cartridges (104) using the magnetocaloric materials (inside 104) having different temperature ranges (different temperature ranges can be applied to the cartridges), and selectively couples one of the plurality of cartridges (one of 104) to the main body case (112) according to an intended use to expand an operating temperature (para. 29).
In regard to claim 2, Zia teaches that the main body case (112) includes: a first holder (front and back walls) that fixes (interpreted as locates) the front and rear sides (see front and back of 104 in figure) of at least one (one of 104 at least) of the plurality of cartridges (104); and a second holder (left and right walls) that fixes (interpreted as locates) left and right sides (see left and right of 104) of the at least one cartridge (104 at least) equipped with the inlet (114) and the outlet (116), and is connected to the inlet (114) and the outlet (116) so as to be in communication with each other (114 and 116 communicate with each other fluidly) and forms a path for the heat transfer fluid (cooling fluid, para. 22).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zia (US 2019/0170407) in view of Hadimani (US 2019/0331370). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 3, Zia teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach a sealing member interposed in a coupling portion of the second holder so as to improve watertightness performance. However, Hadimani teaches a second holder (see left and right walls of 102) having an inlet (206) and an outlet (204), the inlet (206) and the outlet (204) in communication with each other and forms a path for a heat transfer fluid (fluid, para. 37), a sealing member (threaded structures) interposed in a coupling portion (part) of the second holder (left and right walls of 102) improving sealing performance over other connectors. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Zia with the sealing member of Hadimani for the purpose of providing good fluid connection and easy implementation.
In regard to claim 7, Zia teaches most of the claim limitations, including replacing at least one cartridge (104) receiving the magnetocaloric materials (inside 104) having a temperature range that matches a temperature range appropriate for user's desired temperature setting (para. 29), but does not teach a controller that measures an internal temperature of the magnetic transfer unit in real time and automatically performs the replacing. However, Hadimani teaches a controller (112, 512; para. 51) that measures an internal temperature (via 102b at least) of a magnetic transfer unit (at least 102) in real time (para. 54) and operates movement of the magnetocaloric material (para. 51). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Zia with the controller of Hadimani to provide automatic temperature control to Zia.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zia (US 2019/0170407) in view of Kim (KR 10-2018-0089152). Alternatively,
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zia (US 2019/0170407) in view of Hadimani (US 2019/0331370) and Kim (KR 10-2018-0089152). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim(s) 4-5, Zia teaches that the plurality of cartridges (104) employs a B type cartridge (see at least one of 104; interpreted as having magnetocaloric material with a curie temperature within a temperature range of 10C to 40C) applied to an operating temperature of 10 to 40C (para. 29, see 15 to 22C is within the claimed range).
Zia does not explicitly teach cartridges having operating temperatures of 0C to 10C and 40C to 60C, respectively. However, Zia teaches that the magnetocaloric material should be selected for the “desired temperature for the end use application” (para. 29). Further, Kim teaches that it is routine and ordinary to provide a magnetocaloric cooling system (Fig. 3) having cartridges (100 with different magnetocaloric materials M) holding magnetocaloric material (M), at least one cartridge (see one set of M) having an operating temperature of 0C to 10C (see 0C to 10C - Fig. 3) and another cartridge (another of M) having an operating temperature of 40C to 60C (see 50C to 60C - Fig. 3), thereby providing more efficient operation over such temperatures. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cartridges of Zia with magnetocaloric material having a curie temperature suited for the temperature range of the application at hand for the purpose of obtaining more efficient cooling operation. Note in regard to claim 5, Zia teaches that at least one of the cartridges (104) is used as a four-season household air conditioner (para. 29 “home” cooling) as needed by being replaced with a cartridge type according to an operating temperature (fully capable of such functional use).
In regard to claim 6, Zia that the plurality of the cartridges are automatically replaced by a rotating plate (see 104 rotates around 105) that rotates around a rotating axis (105).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights