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 .
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 “phase adjustment mechanism” 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 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: “phase adjustment mechanism” use throughout the claims.
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.
For the record:
“Phase adjustment mechanism” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described in the specification at para. 0060 as being a controller, 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 § 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 9-10 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 9 recites the limitation “a fluid working medium” in line 4 of the claim. However, base claim 1 already recites “a fluid working medium” at lines 3-4 of the claim. As recited, it is unclear whether these are meant to connote the same or different fluid working medium. The recitation in claim 9 should be changed to “the fluid working medium”. Claim 10 is also rejected since it depends from claim 9.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (US 2009/0229305 A1 – hereinafter Yamada et al. ‘305).
As per claim 1, Yamada et al. disclose an ejector refrigeration system comprising:
a compressor 1 having a suction port and a discharge port;
a first heat exchanger 2 connected to the discharge port of the compressor to receive a fluid working medium flowing out from the discharge port of the compressor; and
an ejector 5 including a primary flow inlet connected to the first heat exchanger to receive a fluid working medium from the first heat exchanger (inlet connected to line 81), a secondary flow inlet 5B, and an ejector outlet (outlet to HX 6) connected to the suction port of the compressor to return a fluid working medium entering the ejector to the suction port of the compressor, wherein
the ejector refrigeration system further comprises:
a phase adjustment mechanism (control unit described at paras. 0038-0040) configured to adjust a phase state of the fluid working medium entering the primary flow inlet of the ejector (control of dryness as described at paras. 0010-0011, 0051, 0054, 0059; etc.).
As per claim 6, Yamada et al. disclose the system further comprising: an expansion valve 3 disposed between the primary flow inlet and the first heat exchanger (Fig. 1; etc.), wherein the phase adjustment mechanism is a mechanism for controlling an opening degree of the expansion valve (paras. 0010-0011, 0051, 0054, 0059; etc.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada ‘305 in view of Yamada et al. (US 2009/0229306 A1 – hereinafter Yamada et al. ‘306) and Yokoyama et al. (US 2018/0058738 A1).
As per claim 3, Yamada ‘305 discloses a second heat exchanger 6, but does not teach and a gas-liquid separator including an inlet connected to the ejector outlet, a gas outlet connected to the suction port of the compressor, and a liquid outlet connected to the secondary flow inlet via the second heat exchanger. Yamada ‘306 teaches a similar system (see Fig. 1; etc.), and further that a gas-liquid separator can be placed downstream of the ejector (para.0090). Further, Yokoyama et al. teach an ejector system comprising second heat exchanger 14 and a gas-liquid separator 13 including an inlet connected to the ejector 20 outlet, a gas outlet connected to the suction port of the compressor 11, and a liquid outlet connected to the secondary flow inlet via the second heat exchanger (Fig. 1; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly modify Yamada ‘305 in this manner for the purpose of controlling both pressure and dryness downstream of the ejector (Yamada ‘306, para. 0090).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada ‘305.
As per claim 4, Yamada et al. do not teach the system further comprising: a differential pressure sensor configured to measure a differential pressure between the secondary flow inlet of the ejector and the ejector outlet, the phase adjustment mechanism being in communication connection with the differential pressure sensor, or the ejector refrigeration system further comprising: a pressure detection assembly configured to detect pressures of the ejector outlet and the secondary flow inlet, the phase adjustment mechanism being in communication connection with the pressure detection assembly. However, note that the output from the pressure sensors are never functionally applied in any manner, but that the phase adjustment mechanism (which according to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), above, is simply a controller) is in communication with the sensors. First, in the absence of any related controls being performed, it is considered a simple expedient to place pressure sensors within a refrigeration system and that such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the general purpose of monitoring the functioning of the system. Further, having the sensors being in communication with a controller is a further simple expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of collecting the sensor output and facilitating the monitoring.
As per claim 5, similarly, Yamada et al. ‘305 does not teach the system further comprising: a dryness sensor disposed at the primary flow inlet, the phase adjustment mechanism being in communication connection with the dryness sensor. Again, note that the output from the dryness sensor are never functionally applied in any manner, but that the phase adjustment mechanism (which according to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), above, is simply a controller) is in communication with the sensor. First, in the absence of any related controls being performed, it is considered a simple expedient to place a dryness sensor at a location within a refrigeration system and that such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the general purpose of monitoring the functioning of the system. Further, having the sensor being in communication with a controller is a further simple expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of collecting the sensor output and facilitating the monitoring.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada ‘305 in view of Ikegami et al. (US 2007/0000262 A1).
As per claim 7, Yamada et al. ‘305 does not teach wherein the phase adjustment mechanism is a mechanism for controlling a rotation speed of a fan of the first heat exchanger. Ikegami et al. teach an ejector refrigeration system comprising a controller 21 (considered equivalent to the “phase adjustment mechanism” as discussed above regarding interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) which controls a rotation speed of a fan 12a of the first heat exchanger 12 (Figs. 1-21; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly control the fan of the first heat exchanger of Yamada et al. ‘305 for the general purpose optimizing system efficiency by achieving a desired amount of cooling of the refrigerant being performed at the first heat exchanger.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8 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.
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Yamada et al. as applied above constitutes the closest prior art.
As per claim 2, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Yamada et al. wherein the phase adjustment mechanism is configured to adjust the fluid working medium entering the primary flow inlet of the ejector into a gas-liquid two-phase state in response to an external ambient temperature being lower than a specified value.
As per claim 8, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Yamada et al. to further comprise a bypass pipeline connected, at one end, between the discharge port of the compressor and the first heat exchanger, and connected, at the other end, between an outlet of the first heat exchanger and the primary flow inlet; and a first opening regulating valve disposed in the bypass pipeline, wherein the phase adjustment mechanism is a mechanism for adjusting an opening degree of the first opening regulating valve.
As per claim 9 (and claim 10 which depends therefrom), there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Yamada et al. to further comprise a reservoir including: a reservoir inlet communicating with a first pipe section of the first heat exchanger to receive a fluid working medium at an outlet of the first pipe section; a reservoir liquid refrigerant outlet communicating with a second pipe section of the first heat exchanger; and a reservoir gaseous refrigerant outlet located at the top of the reservoir and connected between an outlet of the first heat exchanger and the primary flow inlet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights