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 .
The claims received 9/15/2026 are entered. Claims 5-7 and 10-14 are cancelled. Claims 17-28 are new.
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.
Although the phrase “expansion device” combines the nonce term “device” with the function of “expansion” the phrase is not interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) as it is considered to have sufficiently definite meaning in the art corresponding to a structure. MPEP 2181
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “fixed regulating orifice” of claim 28 (discussed at [020]) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-4, 15, and 17-26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “said ejector” at line 6 which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “said evaporator inlet” at lines 6-7 which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “adapted to be connected to an expansion device outlet”. Neither the expansion device nor the outlet thereof is positively recited by the claim. Claim 22 goes on to state “said expansion device outlet is an outlet of a motorized expansion valve”. Antecedent basis is unclear if the motorized expansion valve is the expansion device. For example two expansion means may share an outlet. Similarly claim 23 recites “a controller configured to adjust an expansion device” the expansion device lacks clear antecedent basis. Claims 24 and 25 recite similar. The examiner suggests positively reciting the expansion device and its outlet at claim 1 and providing clear antecedent basis to the same in claims 22-25.
Claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yoshii et al (US 12,372,279).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshii discloses direct expansion refrigeration system comprising:
a refrigerant line connecting the following, in order of refrigerant flow:
an expansion device (13),
an ejector (15);
an evaporator (14), and
a compressor (11), said
said ejector (15) having an ejector outlet (flow 105) in direct fluid communication with an inlet of said evaporator (14) such that an entirety of the fluid output from the ejector outlet is delivered to the evaporator inlet,
said expansion device (13) is configured to deliver two-phase refrigerant to a motive inlet (flow 104) of said ejector (3:9-10), said evaporator is configured to deliver liquid refrigerant to a recirculating liquid inlet of said ejector (flow 106), and said ejector is configured to deliver two phase refrigerant to said evaporator (flow 105; 3:9-10).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 15-16, 19-24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al (US 12,372,279) in view of Derosier et al (US 11,493,245).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshii discloses an apparatus for improving the performance of a direct expansion refrigeration system, the apparatus comprising:
an ejector (15) having an ejector outlet (path 105) in direct fluid communication with an evaporator (14) inlet such that an entirety of the fluid output from the ejector outlet is delivered to the evaporator inlet,
the ejector (15) having a motive flow inlet (from flow 104) to receive two-phase refrigerant (3:9-10),
an evaporator outlet refrigerant line connected at a first end to an outlet of said evaporator, said evaporator outlet having an evaporator outlet liquid refrigerant line (36) and an evaporator outlet vapor refrigerant line (35),
said evaporator outlet liquid refrigerant line connected to a side port of said ejector (flow 106), said evaporator outlet vapor refrigerant line connected to a compressor (11),
said arrangement configured to simultaneously and continuously deliver two-phase refrigerant to said ejector and refrigerant liquid to said evaporator (3:9-10).
Yoshii lacks an inlet separator.
Derosier discloses an apparatus for improving the performance of a direct expansion refrigeration system, the apparatus comprising:
an inlet separator (11) adapted to be connected to an expansion device outlet of said direct expansion refrigeration system, said inlet separator having a liquid refrigerant outlet (15) and a two-phase refrigerant outlet (13; “two-phase” discussed below),
an evaporator (25) having an evaporator inlet (23) directly connected to said inlet separator liquid outlet (15),
an ejector (33) having a motive flow inlet (31) directly connected to said inlet separator two-phase refrigerant outlet (13),
an evaporator outlet refrigerant line (27) connected at a first end to an outlet of said evaporator, said evaporator outlet having an evaporator outlet liquid refrigerant line (30) and an evaporator outlet vapor refrigerant line (29),
said evaporator outlet liquid refrigerant line connected to a side port of said ejector (35), said evaporator outlet vapor refrigerant line connected to a compressor (“compressor” of figure 1),
said inlet separator (11) configured to simultaneously and continuously deliver two-phase refrigerant to said ejector and refrigerant liquid to said evaporator.
Further regarding the two-phase refrigerant outlet (13) of Derosier. Derosier describes the condition of the refrigerant at outlet 13 as being “vapor flash gas”. In the art flash gas is understood to be the result of sudden vaporization of a saturated liquid due to pressure drop and thus includes droplet entrainment within the vapor. Nonetheless Yoshii provides for two-phase refrigerant explicitly and in the proposed combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yoshii with the inlet separator and its connections to the ejector and evaporator respectively as well as the common evaporator outlet as taught by Derosier in order to utilize the flash gas as the motive fluid for the ejector and deliver liquid directly to the evaporator (3:31-47).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshii and Derosier disclose said inlet separator (11 of Derosier) is configured to simultaneously and continuously deliver two-phase refrigerant directly to said ejector (33) and refrigerant liquid directly to said evaporator (25) via the evaporator inlet.
Regarding claim 3, Yoshii and Derosier disclose said inlet separator and said ejector are combined in an integrated refrigerant recycling device (4:1-6 of Derosier).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshii and Derosier disclose said evaporator inlet is a distributor (19 as provide by Derosier).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshii discloses an apparatus for improving the performance of a direct expansion refrigeration system, the apparatus comprising:
an evaporator (14),
an ejector (15),
said ejector having an ejector outlet (flow 105) in direct fluid communication with an inlet of said evaporator such that an entirety of the fluid output from the ejector outlet is delivered to the evaporator inlet (all of flow 105 is delivered to the evaporator 14),
an evaporator outlet having a vapor outlet refrigerant line (35) and a liquid outlet refrigerant line (36),
said evaporator outlet liquid refrigerant line (36) connected to a recirculating liquid inlet (15) of said ejector,
said evaporator outlet vapor outlet refrigerant line (35) connected to a compressor (11).
Yoshii lacks an inlet separator and a common evaporator outlet header.
Derosier discloses an apparatus for improving the performance of a direct expansion refrigeration system, the apparatus comprising:
an inlet separator (13) adapted to be connected to an expansion device (3) outlet of said direct expansion refrigeration system, said inlet separator having a liquid refrigerant outlet (15) and a vapor refrigerant outlet (15),
an evaporator (25) having an evaporator inlet (19) directly connected to said inlet separator vapor outlet (15),
an ejector (33) having a motive flow inlet directly connected to said inlet separator liquid refrigerant outlet (13),
an evaporator outlet header (27) having a vapor outlet refrigerant line (29) and a liquid outlet refrigerant line (30),
said evaporator outlet header outlet liquid refrigerant line (30) connected to a recirculating liquid inlet (35) of said ejector,
said evaporator outlet header vapor outlet refrigerant line (29) connected to a compressor (“compressor” of figure 1),
said inlet separator (11) configured to simultaneously and continuously deliver vapor refrigerant to said evaporator inlet (19) and liquid refrigerant to said ejector (liquid refrigerant by way of at least path 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yoshii with the inlet separator and its connections to the ejector and evaporator respectively as well as the common evaporator outlet as taught by Derosier in order to utilize the flash gas as the motive fluid for the ejector and deliver liquid directly to the evaporator (3:31-47).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshii and Derosier disclose said evaporator inlet comprises a distributor (19 provided by Derosier).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshii and Derosier disclose said evaporator inlet comprises a distributor (19 provided by Derosier).
Regarding claims 19-20, Yoshii discloses two phase flow at the ejector nozzle but is silent concerning a velocity value. It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance the examiner takes official notice that ejector nozzle velocity corresponds to droplet entrainment within the flow, often called a mist. Therefor because velocity is recognized as effecting the result of droplet entrainment or mist; the value of 250-1000 ft/s is not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and is obvious.
Regarding claim 21, Yoshii discloses said ejector is configured to produce, at said side port, a minimum pressure less than a suction pressure at said outlet of said evaporator (the net flow of refrigerant provides for a lower pressure at said side port).
Regarding claims 22-24, Yoshii, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but is silent concerning a motor. Yoshii merely states that the expansion valve is “adjustable”. The examiner takes official notice that controlled motorized expansion valves are old and well known as are bulbed thermostatic expansion valves. The examiner further notes that expansion valves such as thermostatic expansion valves and the like where the motive force is provided by fluid pressure/springs constitutes a motor and a controller is constituted in the same way by the fluid bulb associated therewith. Thus the motorized expansion valve is an expansion valve other than a manual expansion valve. Moreover as the limitation extends from claim 1, the motorized expansion valve itself is not positively recited by the claim rather the inlet separator is adapted to be connected to it. It has been held that automating a manual activity (e.g. adjusting a valve) is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04.III. Moreover it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yoshii with a motorized expansion valve in order to avoid the need of user intervention and to control the valve over varying conditions. Still further regarding claim 24, Yoshii is silent concerning a value of superheat. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to provide a small amount of superheat in order to protect the compressor from liquid suction. It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance superheat provides protection to the compressor by preventing droplet suction while high amounts of superheat lower system efficiency. Therefor because superheat is recognized as effecting the result of efficiency and compressor protection; the value of 3F is not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and is obvious.
Regarding claim 27, Yoshii discloses said evaporator inlet of said evaporator provides a distributor (24) devoid of a distributor nozzle.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al (US 12,372,279), in view of Derosier et al (US 11,493,245), and in view of Yamada et al (US 2007/0028630).
Regarding claims 17-18, Yoshii, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 1 where said two-phase refrigerant has a quality (quality is an inherent aspect of two phase refrigerant flow) but is silent concerning the numerical value of the quality. It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance Yamada discloses that adjusting a dryness degree (which corresponds to quality) in order to facilitate fabrication of the ejector nozzle ([0011]). Therefor because quality is recognized as effecting the result of ejector nozzle fabrication; the claim values are not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and are obvious.
Claim(s) 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al (US 12,372,279), in view of Derosier et al (US 11,493,245), and in view of Gorbounov et al (US 7,377,126).
Regarding claim 25, Yoshii, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 1 but lacks a subcooler. Gorbounov discloses a subcooler (15; liquid refrigerant in 15a is further cooled during heat recovery) configured to deliver subcooled liquid refrigerant to an expansion device (13) coupled to an inlet separator (21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yoshii with the subcooler of Gorbounov in order to extract additional heat from the refrigerant prior to evaporation.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Yoshii, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 1 but lacks a suction header as claimed. Gorbounov discloses an outlet of an evaporator which comprises a suction header (2), an evaporator outlet liquid refrigerant line (17) is connected to a bottom portion of said suction header. Yoshii provides a flooded core type evaporator while Gorbounov provides for stationary conduit assembly for one media only, a so called radiator type heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the flooded core heat exchanger for the radiator type heat exchanger in order to provide an arrangement that is more conducive to heat exchange with air the substitution inclusive of the use of the suction header as described above. Similarly on the supply side of the evaporator the header/distributor (1) of Gorbounov is devoid of a nozzle and follows to provide with the evaporator substitution as discussed above.
Regarding claim 28, Yoshii, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 16 but lacks a fixed regulating orifice Gorbounov discloses an inlet separator (path 12 is split/separated as shown in figure 6) is connected to a side port of a distributor (1) through a fixed orifice (24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yoshii with a fixed orifice in order to further expand the refrigerant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection. The examiner agrees Derosier does not provide all of the refrigerant from the outlet of the ejector to the evaporator inlet. For this reason Yoshii is provided as the primary reference as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogata et al (US 10,302,341) two phase refrigerant at motive inlet 14a of ejector
Su et al (US 10,739,047) ejector cycle
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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 at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
