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 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.
Claims 2-4 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a heating apparatus” (in line 1) despite the recitation of the same in lines 3-4 of claim 1. It is unclear how many heating apparatuses are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the heating apparatus—.
The claim recites “a thermal transfer fluid” despite the recitation of the same in line 3 of claim 1. It is unclear how many thermal transfer fluids are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the thermal transfer fluid—.
Claim 3 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a cooling apparatus” (in line 1) despite the recitation of the same in line 8 of claim 1. It is unclear how many cooling apparatuses are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the cooling apparatus—.
The claim recites “a thermal transfer fluid” despite the recitation of the same in line 3 of claim 1. It is unclear how many thermal transfer fluids are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the thermal transfer fluid—.
Claim 4 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a heating apparatus” (in line 1) despite the recitation of the same in lines 3-4 of claim 1. It is unclear how many heating apparatuses are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the cooling apparatus—.
The claim recites “a cooling apparatus” (in line 2) despite the recitation of the same in line 8 of claim 1. It is unclear how many cooling apparatuses are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the cooling apparatus—.
The claim recites “a thermal transfer fluid” in line 4 despite the recitation of the same in line 3 of claim 1. It is unclear how many thermal transfer fluids are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the thermal transfer fluid—.
The claim recites “a thermal transfer fluid” in lines 1-2 of page 3 despite the previous recitations of the same. It is unclear how many thermal transfer fluids are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the thermal transfer fluid—.
The claim recites “a thermal transfer fluid” in lines 7-8 of page 3 despite the previous recitations of the same. It is unclear how many thermal transfer fluids are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the thermal transfer fluid—.
Claim 9 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a heating apparatus” (in line 2) despite the recitation of the same in lines 3-4 of claim 1. It is unclear how many heating apparatuses are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the cooling apparatus—.
The claim recites “a cooling apparatus” (in line 3) despite the recitation of the same in line 8 of claim 1. It is unclear how many cooling apparatuses are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the cooling apparatus—.
Claim 10 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a heating apparatus” (in line 3) despite the recitation of the same in lines 3-4 of claim 1. It is unclear how many heating apparatuses are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the cooling apparatus—.
The claim recites “a cooling apparatus” (in line 4) despite the recitation of the same in line 8 of claim 1. It is unclear how many cooling apparatuses are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation will be construed as –the cooling apparatus—.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-8 and 19-20 are allowed. Claims 2-4 and 9-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all1 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The closest prior art references appear to include Tamaki et al. (US 20140345310 A1), Fisher (US 4718248 A), and Lawrence et al. (US 4538418 A). However, none of the aforementioned references would appear to reasonably anticipate or render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as currently recited.
At best, Tamaki et al. appears to disclose a heat pump (100) comprising: at least two air vents (e.g., inlet and outlet of 302) defining an airflow pathway therebetween (see at least fig. 1); a heating circuit inlet (e.g., 15) configured to receive a thermal transfer fluid from a heating apparatus (303); a heating circuit outlet (11) configured to deliver the thermal transfer fluid to the heating apparatus (303); a cooling circuit inlet (9) configured to receive (see fig. 4) the thermal transfer fluid from a cooling apparatus (302); a cooling circuit outlet (7) configured to deliver (see fig. 4) the thermal transfer fluid to the cooling apparatus (302); an evaporator/condenser (8) positioned adjacent to at least one of the at least two air vents (see fig. 4); a fan (described in at least ¶ 43) configured to move air through the airflow pathway and across the evaporator/condenser (8); a compressor (1) having a compressor inlet (40) and a compressor outlet (30); a three-way reversible valve (3) fluidly connected to the compressor inlet (40), the compressor outlet (30), the evaporator/condenser (8), and the heating circuit outlet (11), the three-way reversible valve (3) being configured to selectively control a direction of flow of the thermal transfer fluid from the compressor outlet (30; see at least figs. 1-4); a two-way check valve (18) positioned in between the three-way reversible valve (3) and the compressor inlet (40).
However, Tamaki et al. does not disclose the remaining claim limitations. Likewise, neither Fisher or Lawrence et al. appear to reasonably disclose, teach or suggest the deficiencies of Tamaki et al.
It should also be noted that the intended purpose and operating principles of the prior art require the specific arrangement of fluid lines, valves, heat exchangers, bypasses, etc., as disclosed and described therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any modifications to the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention would be based on improper hindsight and would render the references inoperable for their intended purpose. Assuming arguendo, rearranging the valves, fluid inlets, outlets, lines and bypasses would change the principles of operation thereof, since it would require completely redesigning the structure of the heat pump system, most likely resulting in unexpected and/or unintended results, which is evidence against a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, a preponderance of evidence supports the allowability of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 C. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 Disclaimer: failure to include all the intervening limitations will result in a different claim scope, which may require a new grounds of rejection prior to a final determination of allowability.
Prosecution Insights