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 Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, at line 1, recites “to the claim 4” but should instead read “to claim 4”.
Claim 7, at line 2, the phrase “at least” should be deleted and replaced with “first”.
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.
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: an expansion stage, an evaporation stage, and an oil system.
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.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reissig (WO 2018/166740, see attached English translation).
As to claim 1, Reissig discloses a heat pump circuit (Fig. 4) comprising:
a compressor 7a-b for compressing a working fluid;
an expansion stage 9a-b for expanding the working fluid;
a first heat exchanger 8 arranged downstream of the compressor 7a-b and upstream of the expansion stage 9a-b, wherein the first heat exchanger is configured to exchange heat between the working fluid and a first heat sink 20;
a second heat exchanger 34 arranged downstream of the first exchanger 8 and upstream of the expansion state 9a-b, wherein the second heat exchanger 34 is configured to exchange heat with the working fluid after the working fluid exits an evaporation stage 10 but before the working fluid re-enters the compressor; and
the evaporation stage 10 is arranged downstream of the expansion stage 9a-b and is configured to exchange heat between the working fluid and a heat source 4 (and is thus capable of exchanging heat between working fluid and ambient air).
As to claims 2-3, the first heat sink is a fluid that exchanges heat with working fluid at exchanger 8 (Fig. 4), and thus the system is capable of use with a first heat sink that is a hot water system and/or a space heating system of a building.
As to claim 4, the expansion stage comprises a first expansion valve 9a, a second expansion valve 9b, and a liquid receiver 30 therebetween.
As to claim 18, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would nec-essarily perform the method claimed then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus the method as claimed would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus of Reissig.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reissig as applied above, and further in view of Zha (US 2018/0187928)..
As to claim 5, Reissig teaches a bypass line 36 for venting to a compressor suction, but does not explicitly teach a pressure valve. However, Zha teaches that it is known to use a pressure valve 180 on such a line. Thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Reissig to include a pressure valve as claimed and taught by Zha in order to improve flow control capabilities for the system.
As to claim 6, Reissig is silent regarding control of valves 9a-b. However, Zha teaches independently controlling such valves (paragraph 122). Thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Reissig to independently control valves as claimed and taught by Zha in order to improve flow control capabilities for the system.
As to claim 13, Reissig does not explicitly teach a third exchanger as claimed. However, Zha teaches that it is known to use three such exchangers 120, 130, and 140. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Reissig to incorporate a third exchanger as claimed and taught by Zha in order to increase the temperature control capabilities of the system.
As to claim 14, Reissig is silent regarding a controller. However, Zha teaches that it is known to use a controller 500 with a processor to control a heat pump system (Fig. 5). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Reissig to incorporate a controller as claimed to control the compressor and expansion valves because it would provide an automated means of maximizing system efficiency and/or capacity.
As to claim 15, the modified apparatus includes the hot coolant loop 190 of Zha (Fig. 1).
As to claim 16, Zha teaches using carbon dioxide refrigerant (paragraph 14).
As to claim 17, Zha teaches a water-glycol intermediate coolant (paragraph 26).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reissig as applied above, and further in view of Takayama (US 2018/0023818).
As to claim 7, Reissig teaches an evaporator 10 but does not explicitly teach a fan as claimed. However, Takayama teaches that it is known to utilize such an evaporator fan (paragraph 25). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Reissig to utilize an evaporator fan as claimed and taught by Takayama in order to provide the capability for effectively cooling air of an interior space.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reissig as applied above, and further in view of Nishida (US 6,230,506).
As to claim 8, Reissig does not explicitly teach an accumulator as claimed. However, Nishida teaches using an accumulator 80 (col. 6, lines 32-43). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Reissig to utilize an accumulator as taught by Nishida in order to prevent slugging at the compressor.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reissig as applied above, and further in view of Kiya (US 2023/0251004).
As to claims 9-12, Reissig does not explicitly teach an oil system as claimed. However, Kiya teaches that it is known to use an oil system with an oil separator, reservoir, and oil valve, wherein pressure in the oil reservoir is maintained to be higher than the compressor and oil passes from the separator to the reservoir via a valve when lubricant is detected in the separator (paragraphs 75-76). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Reissig to utilize an oil system as claimed and taught by Kiya in order to maintain proper lubrication of the compressor 7a-b.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights