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 5/6/2025 are entered. Claims 5-7 and 10-14 are cancelled. Claim 16 is 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
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) 1-4, 8-9, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Derosier et al (US 11,493,245).
Regarding claim 1, 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. Under this reading the claim is anticipated by Derosier. This is the first basis of the rejection.
Alternatively, regarding limitations drawn to the phase of the refrigerant, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art. In this instance the phase of the refrigerant can be adjusted by system temperature and pressure. For example adjusting upstream throttling achieved by expansion device (3) adjusts a downstream refrigerant quality (ratio of vapor refrigerant mass to total refrigerant mass). Under this reading the claim is anticipated by Derosier. This is the second basis of the rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Derosier discloses said inlet separator (11) 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, Derosier discloses said inlet separator and said ejector are combined in an integrated refrigerant recycling device (4:1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Derosier discloses said evaporator inlet is a distributor (19).
Regarding claim 8, Derosier discloses direct expansion refrigeration system comprising:
a refrigerant line connecting the following, in order of refrigerant flow:
an expansion device (3),
an ejector (33);
an evaporator (25), and
a compressor (“compressor” of figure 1), said
expansion device (3) is configured to deliver two-phase refrigerant to a motive inlet (31) of said ejector (as per 4:1-6 the separator is inclusive with the ejector and thus receives L+V from the expansion valve), said evaporator is configured to deliver liquid refrigerant to a recirculating liquid inlet of said ejector (35), and said ejector is configured to deliver two phase refrigerant to said evaporator (from 37).
Further regarding two-phase refrigerant. As discussed above the inlet separator 11 is treated as part of the ejector and thus anticipates the claim. Alternatively taking the inlet separator and ejector to be separate the two alternative rejections discussed at claim 1 are imported here.
Regarding claim 9, 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).
Regarding claim 15, Derosier discloses said evaporator inlet comprises a distributor (19).
Regarding claim 16, Derosier discloses said evaporator inlet comprises a distributor (19).
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, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derosier et al (US 11,493,245) in view of Yamada et al (US 2007/0028630).
Regarding claim 1, 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 vapor flash gas refrigerant outlet (13)
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 vapor flash gas 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 vapor flash gas 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. Derosier does not explicitly describe the condition of the refrigerant as two-phase.
Yamada discloses an inlet separator (4) upstream of the motive inlet of ejector (6) where the inlet separator is described as a “dryness degree adjusting mechanism” ([0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have provided Derosier with inlet separator of Yamada in order to tune the dryness degree of the refrigerant for the ejector enabling larger diameter ejector geometries thereby decreasing fabrication costs of the ejector as discussed at [0011]. This is the third basis of the rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Derosier discloses said inlet separator (11) 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, Derosier discloses said inlet separator and said ejector are combined in an integrated refrigerant recycling device (4:1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Derosier discloses said evaporator inlet is a distributor (19).
Regarding claim 8, Derosier discloses direct expansion refrigeration system comprising:
a refrigerant line connecting the following, in order of refrigerant flow:
an expansion device (3),
an ejector (33);
an evaporator (25), and
a compressor (“compressor” of figure 1), said
expansion device (3) is configured to deliver vapor flash gas refrigerant to a motive inlet (31) of said ejector (as per 4:1-6 the separator is inclusive with the ejector and thus receives L+V from the expansion valve), said evaporator is configured to deliver liquid refrigerant to a recirculating liquid inlet of said ejector (35), and said ejector is configured to deliver two phase refrigerant to said evaporator (from 37).
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. Derosier does not explicitly describe the condition of the refrigerant as two-phase.
Yamada discloses an inlet separator (4) upstream of the motive inlet of ejector (6) where the inlet separator is described as a “dryness degree adjusting mechanism” ([0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have provided Derosier with inlet separator of Yamada in order to tune the dryness degree of the refrigerant for the ejector enabling larger diameter ejector geometries thereby decreasing fabrication costs of the ejector as discussed at [0011]. This is the third basis of the rejection.
Regarding claim 15, Derosier discloses said evaporator inlet comprises a distributor (19).
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
Gorbounov et al (US 7,377,126) evaporator outlet header
Yoshii et al (US 12,372,279) ejector cycle
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
Prosecution Insights