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
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3-4 recite “a first heat sink” but should instead read “the first heat sink. 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: and expansion stage and an evaporation stage.
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, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zha (US 2018/0187928).
As to claim 1, Zha teaches a heat pump circuit, comprising:
a compressor 110 for compressing working fluid;
an expansion stage 150/165 for expanding the working fluid;
a first heat exchanger 120 arranged downstream of the compressor 110 and upstream of the expansion stage 150/165, wherein the first heat exchanger 120 is configured to exchange heat between the working fluid and a first heat sink;
a second heat exchanger 130 arranged downstream of the first heat exchanger and upstream of the expansion stage 150/165, wherein the second heat exchanger is configured to exchange heat between the working fluid and a second heat sink; and
an evaporation stage 170 arranged downstream of the expansion stage 150/165, wherein the evaporation stage 170 is configured to exchange heat between the working fluid and ambient air.
As to claim 15, Zha discloses using a controller 500 with a processor to control a heat pump system (Fig. 5).
As to claim 17, Zha discloses using carbon dioxide refrigerant (paragraph 14).
As to claim 18, Zha discloses a water-glycol intermediate coolant (paragraph 26).
As to claim 19, 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 Zha.
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 2-5, 7-10, 13-14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zha as applied above, and further in view of Ogata (US 2017/0184314).
As to claim 2, Zha teaches a third heat exchanger 140 arranged downstream of the second heat exchanger 130 and upstream of the expansion stage 150/165, wherein the third heat exchanger 140 is configured to exchange heat between the working fluid and a heat sink.
Zha does not explicitly teach the third heat exchanger 140 exchanging heat with the same heat sink as that of exchanger 120. However, Ogata teaches utilizing first and third exchangers 22 & 24 connected to the same heat sink (Figs. 1 and 7). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Zha to be configured in the manner as claimed and taught by Ogata because it would increase the heating capability for the system 190 of Zha.
As to claims 3-4, Ogata teaches the third exchanger pre-heating a hot water system of a building in the manner as claimed (Fig. 7).
As to claim 5, Zha teaches the heat sink 190 as a space heating system of the building (paragraph 16).
As to claim 7, Zha teaches the expansion stage comprising a first expansion valve 150, a second expansion valve 165, and a liquid receiver 160 therebetween.
As to claim 8, Zha teaches a bypass line and pressure valve 180 as claimed.
As to claim 9, Zha teaches independent valve control (paragraph 16).
As to claim 10, Zha teaches evaporator(s) 170, but is silent regarding a fan. However, Official Notice is taken that an evaporator fan is a common and typical feature of a refrigeration system that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the circuit of Zha for the purpose of providing effective heat exchange for air cooling.
As to claims 13-14, the modified apparatus is silent regarding specific second and third temperatures. However, the specific temperatures are recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that certain temperatures provide effective water heating for the user. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the second and third temperatures as claimed.
As to claim 16, Zha discloses hot coolant loop 190 circulating an intermediate coolant for the first heat sink.
As to claim 20, 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 modified apparatus of Zha.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied above, and further in view of Takayama (US 2018/0023818).
As to claim 6, Zha does not explicitly teach a fourth exchanger as claimed. However, Takayama teaches using an exchanger 9, which is downstream of exchangers 4-5 which are connected to the same heat sink, that is configured to exchange heat with working fluid after it exits an evaporation stage (Fig. 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Zha to incorporate an exchanger as taught by Takayama as a fourth exchanger in the manner as claimed in order to a subcooling function to improve operating efficiency.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied above, and further in view of Radermacher (US 5,207,077).
As to claim 11, Zha does not explicitly teach a series evaporator as claimed. However, Radermacher teaches use of series evaporators (Fig. 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Zha to incorporate a series evaporator as claimed and taught by Radermacher in order to provide a more versatile cooling scheme.
As to claim 12, the modified apparatus is silent in regards to relative fin densities of the evaporators. However, the specific fin density of each evaporator is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a certain fin density will provide the desired cooling effects. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a second evaporator with a fin density that is greater than that of the first evaporator.
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