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: “control device” and “heat exchange unit” used throughout the claims.
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.
For the record:
“Control device” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described at para. 0033 of the specification, and equivalents thereof.
“Heat exchange unit” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure regarding reference numeral 21E as described the specification and illustrated in Figs. 1, 9-10, and 15, and equivalents thereof.
“Refrigeration apparatus” and “fluid circulation apparatus” have NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), since sufficient corresponding structure is recited within base claims 1, 25, and 26.
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.
Claim 24 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.
At line 5 of claim 24, the claim recites “the fluid, which is the fluid after….” This limitation is indefinite since it appears to recite a broader limitation “the fluid” by a narrower limitation “which is the fluid after,” rendering the metes and bounds unclear. The Examiner suggests amending this limitation to “the fluid after the heat exchange….”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Honda (US 2012/0285186 A1).
As per claims 1, 25, and 26, Honda discloses a temperature control system (and associated method and control device) comprising: a refrigeration apparatus including a compressor 62, a condenser 65, an expansion valve 66, and an evaporator 41, a refrigerant flowing out from the compressor passing through the condenser, the expansion valve, and the evaporator in this order and then returning to the compressor (Fig. 1; etc.);
a fluid circulation apparatus including a main flow path having a heat exchange unit (portion of coolant fluid passing through evaporator heat exchanger 41) between an inlet and an outlet and allowing a fluid received at the inlet to circulate to the outlet through the heat exchange unit, the fluid circulation apparatus allowing the fluid in the heat exchange unit to exchange heat with the refrigerant in the evaporator (Fig. 1; etc.); and
a control device 90 controlling the refrigeration apparatus and the fluid circulation apparatus (Fig. 1; etc.),
wherein the control device controls the compressor so that a rotation speed of the compressor is changed to a set value (paras. 0057, 0077, 0101, 0129; etc.) derived based on a changed target temperature (paras. 0023, 0110, 013-0134; etc.), and performs an initial operation control (the response to changed operating conditions is itself considered an “initial” control since it occurs directly as a result of changing conditions, and no subsequent control is claimed) of changing a flow rate of the fluid circulating in the heat exchange unit in the main flow path simultaneously with, before, or after the control of the compressor (para. 0101, etc. re. controlling valve 42 along with compressor 62).
As per claim 5, Honda discloses wherein the fluid circulation apparatus further includes a valve mechanism 42 adjusting the flow rate of the fluid circulating in the heat exchange unit in the main flow path (Fig. 1).
As per claim 7, Honda does not explicitly wherein the control device determines a relational expression according to the changed target temperature and derives the set value based on the determined relational expression (para. 0102, relationships discussed at 0152-0156; Fig. 7; etc.).
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 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.
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) 2-4, 9-11, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda.
As per claim 2, Honda discloses lowering the speed of compressor 62 (para. 0129) but does not explicitly teach wherein in an initial operation control, when the rotation speed of the compressor is lowered, the flow rate of the fluid circulating in the heat exchange unit in the main flow path is lowered. First, again, the response to changing conditions in Honda is considered an “initial” response since it occurs directly as a result of changing conditions. Second, also again, Honda teaches controlling compressor 62 and valve 42 simultaneously (para. 0101, etc.), but does not teach the relative directions. However, the direction of changing the flow rate via valve 42 are considered a simple matter that would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application as a matter involving a finite number of options (the flow rate is either lowered, maintained, or increased) achievable through routine experimentation for the purpose of achieving the desired amount of cooling performance.
As per claim 3, Honda does not teach wherein when the target temperature is changed to a temperature higher than a temperature of the fluid detected by a temperature sensor detecting a temperature of the fluid circulating in a downstream portion of the heat exchange unit in the main flow path, the control device lowers the rotation speed of the compressor by the initial operation control. However, it is considered a simple matter of basic thermodynamics that the amount of cooling provided is correlated with compressor speed and, thus, it would have been a simple control expedient that would have been obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to lower the compressor speed when the required degree of cooling is reduced.
As per claim 4, again Honda discloses controlling compressor 62 and valve 42 simultaneously (para. 0101, etc.), but does not teach the relative directions wherein in the initial operation control, when the rotation speed of the compressor is increased, the flow rate of the fluid circulating in the heat exchange unit in the main flow path is increased. However, the direction of changing the flow rate via valve 42 are considered a simple matter that would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application as a matter involving a finite number of options (the flow rate is either lowered, maintained, or increased) achievable through routine experimentation for the purpose of achieving the desired amount of cooling performance.
As per claim 9, Honda discloses simultaneously controlling compressor 62 and expansion valve 66 (para. 0101; etc.) but does not explicitly teach wherein when the rotation speed of the compressor is lowered in the initial operation control, the control device also lowers an opening degree of the expansion valve by a predetermined amount. However, the direction of changing the opening of valve 66 are considered a simple matter that would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application as a matter involving a finite number of options (the opening is either lowered, maintained, or increased) achievable through routine experimentation for the purpose of achieving the desired amount of cooling produced by the refrigeration circuit.
As per claim 10, Honda discloses simultaneously controlling compressor 62 and expansion valve 66 (para. 0101; etc.) wherein when the rotation speed of the compressor is increased in the initial operation control, the control device also increases an opening degree of the expansion valve by a predetermined amount. Again, the direction of changing the opening of valve 66 are considered a simple matter that would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application as a matter involving a finite number of options (the opening is either lowered, maintained, or increased) achievable through routine experimentation for the purpose of achieving the desired amount of cooling produced by the refrigeration circuit.
As per claim 11, Honda does not teach wherein when the opening degree of the expansion valve is changed in the initial operation control, the control device lowers or increases the opening degree of the expansion valve by a range of 5% or more and 10% or less from a current opening degree. However, the opening degree of the expansion valve is considered a simple result effective variable that could have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to arrive at through routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the degree of cooling performed by the system.
As per claim 19, Honda does not teach wherein in the initial operation control, the flow rate of the fluid circulating in the heat exchange unit in the main flow path is lowered by 5% or more and 15% or less. However, the fluid flow rate is considered a simple result effective variable that could have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to arrive at through routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the degree of cooling performed by the system.
As per claim 21, Honda does not teach wherein when the initial operation control is performed, the rotation speed of the compressor is changed by a rotation speed corresponding to a refrigeration capacity of at least 5 Kw. However, the rotational speed of the compressor is considered a simple result effective variable that could have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to arrive at through routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the degree of cooling performed by the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 17-18, 20, and 22-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 24 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.
As per claim 6 (and claim 18 which depends therefrom), there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Honda wherein the fluid circulation apparatus further includes a bypass flow path connecting an upstream portion and a downstream portion of the heat exchange unit in the main flow path and allowing the fluid received from the main flow path to circulate, the valve mechanism adjusts the flow rate of the fluid circulating in the heat exchange unit in the main flow path and a flow rate of the fluid circulating in the bypass flow path, and in the initial operation control, the control device adjusts the valve mechanism to lower the flow rate of the fluid circulating in the heat exchange unit in the main flow path and increase the flow rate of the fluid circulating in the bypass flow path, or to increase the flow rate of the fluid circulating in the heat exchange unit in the main flow path and lower the flow rate of the fluid circulating in the bypass flow path.
As per claim 8 (and claim 23 which depends therefrom), there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Honda wherein when the target temperature is changed, the control device calculates a thermal load for setting the temperature of the fluid before flowing into the heat exchange unit to the target temperature, the relational expression or table defines a relationship between the thermal load and the set value, and the set value is determined based on the target temperature, the thermal load, and the relational expression or table determined according to the target temperature.
As per claim 12 (and claims 13-17 which depend therefrom), there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Honda wherein when the target temperature is changed to a temperature higher than a temperature of the fluid detected by a temperature sensor detecting a temperature of the fluid circulating in a downstream portion of the heat exchange unit in the main flow path, the control device lowers the rotation speed of the compressor and the opening degree of the expansion valve in the initial operation control and then transitions to a preliminary steady control, and in the preliminary steady control, the control device adjusts the opening degree of the expansion valve by a feedback control based on a difference between the temperature of the fluid detected by the temperature sensor and the target temperature, and maintains the rotation speed of the compressor in a lowered state in the initial operation control.
As per claim 20, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Honda wherein the control device performs the initial operation control when an absolute value of a difference between a temperature of the fluid detected by a temperature sensor detecting a temperature of the fluid circulating in a downstream portion of the heat exchange unit in the main flow path and the target temperature or an absolute value of a difference between target temperatures before and after change is equal to or more than a temperature threshold.
As per claim 22, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Honda wherein when the rotation speed of the compressor is lowered to the set value in the initial operation control, in a case where a difference between the set value and a current rotation speed is larger than a rotation speed threshold, a value obtained by subtracting the rotation speed threshold from the current rotation speed is set as the set value.
As per claim 24, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Honda further comprising an external device receiving the fluid from the outlet, performing heat exchange with the fluid, and causing the fluid after the heat exchange to flow into the inlet, wherein when the temperature of the fluid, which is the fluid after the heat exchange in the external device and before flowing into the heat exchange unit, is changed, the control device controls the compressor so that the rotation speed of the compressor is changed to a set value derived based on the changed temperature of the fluid, and performs an initial operation control of changing a flow rate of the fluid circulating in the heat exchange unit in the main flow path simultaneously with, before, or after the control of the compressor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights