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: “throttling element” 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:
“Throttling element” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described in the disclosure as being an expansion valve (see page 4, lines 13-14; page 6, lines 6-7; etc.), or 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.
Also for the record, and in terms of general claim interpretation, “EVI compressor” has been interpreted in light of the specification as being an. “enhanced vapor injection” compressor. This is considered a generally understood term of art in the field.
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claim 1 improperly recites the method step of “the second heat-exchange passage and the third heat-exchange passage exchanging heat with the first heat-exchange passage”. This should more properly read: “the second heat-exchange passage and the third heat-exchange passage configured to exchange
Claim 6 improperly recites a method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bounds unclear. For purposes of examination, the prior art must simply be structurally capable of performing the function in order to read on the claim.
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.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minoru et al. (JP 2003130477A1) in view of Ko et al. (US 8789382 B2).
As per claim 1, Minoru et al. disclose a chiller (Fig. 5) (and an air conditioner refrigeration device comprising the chiller and method of using the chiller), comprising compressors (1-1, 1-2), a condenser 3, a first throttling element 12 and an evaporator 6, the compressors comprising a first EVI compressor (1-1) and a second EVI compressor (1-2) which are connected in parallel, the first EVI compressor being provided with a first supplement port 13, and the second EVI compressor being provided with a second supplement port 13, wherein the chiller further comprises: a second throttling element (10 in economizer pipe of compressor 1-1); a third throttling element (10 in economizer pipe of compressor 1-2); an economizer 5, comprising a first heat-exchange passage, a second heat-exchange passage (Fig. 5), the second heat-exchange passage exchanging heat with the first heat-exchange passage, and the first heat-exchange passage being connected between the condenser and the first throttling valve; a first manifold (Fig. 5), connected between the first throttling element 12 and the condenser 3 and sequentially connected to the second throttling element 10, the second heat-exchange passage and the first supplement port; and a second manifold (see Fig. 5), connected between the first throttling element and the condenser and sequentially connected to the second supplement port.
Minoru et al. disclose a third heat exchange passage configured to exchange heat with the another heat exchange passage between condenser 3 and evaporator 6 (line passing through the second economizer 5 in Fig. 5), but do not teach this third heat exchange passage being configured to exchange heat with the first heat exchange passage. The difference between the claimed invention and Minoru et al., therefore, is that the present invention utilizes only one economizer instead of two, providing the same basic function while providing a more compact arrangement. Ko et al. teach a similar chiller arrangement (Fig. 8) utilizing a three-pass economizer which allows for heat exchange between a first passage (through heat exchanger 137) and each of a second passage (through heat exchanger 222) and a third passage (through heat exchanger 232). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly replace the dual economizers 5 of Minoru et al. with a single three-pass economizer such as that of Ko et al. for the purpose of providing the same economizer function utilizing a more compact design.
As per claim 2, Minoru et al. disclose wherein the first manifold and the second manifold are connected between the first throttling element and the first heat-exchange passage (Fig. 5).
As per claim 3, Minoru et al. disclose wherein the first manifold and the second manifold are connected between the condenser and the first heat-exchange passage (Fig. 5).
As per claim 4, Minoru et al. do not teach wherein no electromagnetic valve is arranged between the first supplement port and the second heat-exchange passage, and no electromagnetic valve is arranged between the second supplement port and the third heat-exchange passage. Ko et al. teach wherein no electromagnetic valve is arranged between the first supplement port and the second heat-exchange passage, and no electromagnetic valve is arranged between the second supplement port and the third heat-exchange passage (Fig. 8).
As per claim 5, Minoru et al. do not teach wherein the economizer is a plate heat exchanger. Ko et al. teach wherein the economizer is a plate heat exchanger (col. 11, lines 24-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly utilize a plate heat exchanger within the economizer of Minoru et al. for the purpose of taking advantage of the generally understood heat transfer efficiencies such heat exchangers provide.
As per claim 6, see rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Since Minoru et al. provides the same compressor structure, it is considered capable of performing the operation wherein one of the first EVI compressor and the second EVI compressor are started, or the first EVI compressor and the second EVI compressor are started synchronously, and thus reads on the claim.
As per claim 7, Minoru et al. disclose an air conditioning system, comprising the chiller according to Claim 1 (Fig. 5).
As per claim 8, Minoru et al. disclose a method of using the chiller according to Claim 1 (implicit in operating the system).
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