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
1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15, 17, 22, 28, 30, 32-34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1; the limitation, “a defrosting sequence” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present application does not further disclose a structure capable of enabling the functions recited within the claim. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Claims 2-15 are dependent from claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 2; the limitation, “the first heat exchanger exceeding a threshold” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Regarding claim 7; the limitation, “a predetermined time duration” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present application does not further disclose a structure capable of enabling the functions recited within the claim. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Regarding claim 10; the limitation, “the characteristic of the refrigerant exceeding a limit” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Regarding claim 13; the limitation, “the limit is a temperature limit” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Regarding claim 17; the limitation, “a termination sequence in response to the temperature of the refrigerant exiting the first heat exchanger exceeding a threshold” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present application does not further disclose a structure capable of enabling the functions recited within the claim. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Claim 30 is dependent from claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 17.
Regarding claim 22; the limitation, “a determination that the outlet refrigerant temperature of the first heat exchanger has not exceeded the inlet temperature of the first heat exchanger for a predetermined period of time” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Regarding claim 28; the limitation, “the limit is a temperature limit” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Regarding claim 32; the limitation, “a predetermined time rate of change” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present application does not further disclose a structure capable of enabling the functions recited within the claim. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Claims 33-34 are dependent from claim 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 32.
Regarding claim 34; the limitation, “the threshold is a temperature limit” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Regarding claim 38; the limitation, “the threshold is a temperature limit” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 2, 7, 10-13, 17, 22, 25-28, 30, 32-34 and 36-38 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation of “a termination sequence” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “termination sequence” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim 7, recites the limitation of “a predetermined time duration” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a predetermined time duration” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim 10, recites the limitation of “monitor a characteristic of the refrigerant during the preheating sequence” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a characteristic of the refrigerant” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim 10, recites the limitation of “the characteristic of the refrigerant exceeding a limit” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a limit” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claims 11-13 are dependent from claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 10.
Claim 13, recites the limitation of “the limit is a temperature limit” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a temperature limit” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim 17, recites the limitation of “initiating a termination sequence in response to the temperature of the refrigerant exiting the first heat exchanger exceeding a threshold” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a threshold” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim 30 is dependent from claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 14.
Claim 22, recites the limitation of “a determination that the outlet refrigerant temperature of the first heat exchanger has not exceeded the inlet temperature of the first heat exchanger for a predetermined period of time” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a predetermined period of time” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim 25, recites the limitation of “monitor a characteristic of the refrigerant during the preheating sequence” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a characteristic of the refrigerant” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim 25, recites the limitation of “the characteristic of the refrigerant exceeding a limit” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a limit” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claims 26-28 are dependent from claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 25.
Claim 28, recites the limitation of “the limit is a temperature limit” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a temperature limit” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim 32, recites the limitation of “a predetermined time rate of change” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “predetermined time rate of change” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claims 33-34 are dependent from claim 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 32.
Claim 33, recites the limitation of “monitor a characteristic of the refrigerant while progressively increasing the water flow rate of the water pump” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a characteristic of the refrigerant” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim 33, recites the limitation of “compare the characteristic of the refrigerant to a threshold” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a threshold” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim 34 is dependent from claim 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 33.
Claim 34, recites the limitation of “the threshold is a temperature limit” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a temperature limit” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim 36, recites the limitation of “a predetermined time rate of change” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “predetermined time rate of change” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claims 37-38 are dependent from claim 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 36.
Claim 37, recites the limitation of “monitoring a characteristic of the refrigerant while progressively increasing the water flow rate of the water pump; comparing the characteristic of the refrigerant to a threshold;” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a characteristic of the refrigerant” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite; further it is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a threshold” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite
Claim 38 is dependent from claim 37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 37.
Claim 38, recites the limitation of “the threshold is a temperature limit” which is confusing as it is unclear what constitute “a temperature limit” as recited in the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Conclusion
3. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-11179999-B2 to Mieda; Hiroshi.
US-20200393151-A1 to Goel; Rakesh.
US-20050126190-A1 to Lifson, Alexander.
CN-116624947-A to KUMAKURA, EIJI.
WO-2022176273-A1 to OKAMOTO, TAKAHIRO.
CN-203771791-U to TAMAKI, SHOGO.
CN-203478673-U to KATO, ODAIRA.
EP-1775533-B1 to HERRS MARTIN.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
08/02/2026
Prosecution Insights