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:
the limitation “a first regulating device” in claim 1 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “regulating” or “pumping” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a first regulating device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a pump”, paragraph 1 of page 8, see figure 2. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof; and
the limitation “a second regulating device” in claim 1 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “regulating” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a second regulating device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a flow control valve”, paragraph 2 of page 11, see figure 2. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Du et al. (CN115096020A).
Regarding claim 1, Du discloses a heat exchange system, comprising:
a compressor (1);
an evaporator (12), in which a refrigerant circulates (see figure 2);
a heat exchanger (the oil cooler 4), in which a heat exchange line (the line which connects the oil separator 2 and the heat exchanger 4) is arranged (see figure 2);
an inlet line (the line which connects the evaporator 12 and the heat exchanger 4), connected to the evaporator (12) and the heat exchange line (the line which connects the oil separator 2 and the heat exchanger 4; see figure 2);
a first regulating device (the cooling water pump 22), arranged on the inlet line (the line which connects the evaporator 12 and the heat exchanger 4) and used for pumping the refrigerant from the evaporator (12) into the heat exchange line (the line which connects the oil separator 2 and the heat exchanger 4); and
an outlet line (the line which connects the heat exchanger 4 and the inlet of the compressor 1), connected to a suction inlet of the compressor (1) and the heat exchange line (the line which connects the oil separator 2 and the heat exchanger 4; see figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN107014113A) in view of Du.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a heat exchange system, comprising:
a compressor (10);
an evaporator (50), in which a refrigerant circulates (see figure 1);
a heat exchanger (30), in which a heat exchange line (the line which connects the oil separator 20 and the heat exchanger 30) is arranged (see figure 1);
an inlet line (the line which connects the evaporator 50 and the heat exchanger 30), connected to the evaporator (50) and the heat exchange line (the line which connects the oil separator 20 and the heat exchanger 30; see figure 1); and
an outlet line (the line which connects the heat exchanger 30 and the suction of the compressor 10), connected to a suction inlet of the compressor (10) and the heat exchange line (the line which connects the oil separator 20 and the heat exchanger 30).
However, Chen fails to disclose a first regulating device arranged on the inlet line and used for pumping the refrigerant from the evaporator into the heat exchange line.
Du teaches a heat exchange system comprising a first regulating device (the cooling water pump 22) arranged on an inlet line (the line which connects the evaporator 12 and the heat exchanger 4) and used for pumping the refrigerant from the evaporator (12) into the heat exchange line (the line which connects the oil separator 2 and the heat exchanger 4; see figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the heat exchange system of Chen to incorporate the claimed first regulating device as taught by Du to regulate the supply of the fluid from the evaporator to the heat exchanger.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reference Du or Chen taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed “second regulation device arranged on the outlet line” of the heat exchange system as required in claims 2-9. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the heat exchange system of Du or Chen to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 2-9 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. 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.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights