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
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the filed drawings are in part illegible. It appears that the filed drawings were filed as inverted images of the intended drawings which are difficult to read. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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
“dummy”
“magnetic susceptibility adjusting portion”
“a number of the plurality of magnetic poles is a prime number”
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 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 4-9, 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the plurality of magnetic material portions include at least one dummy that does not generate the heat energy or the cold energy” which is not enabled by the specification. The factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998) are set forth below.
A. The breadth of the claims:
The breadth of the claims are drawn to a refrigerator with a magnetic array that dummy magnetic portions.
B. The nature of the invention:
A magnetic refrigerator.
C. The state of the prior art:
The state of the prior art does not understand how a magnetic material portion would not be able to generate heat energy or cold energy.
D. The level of one ordinary skill in the art:
A designer of magnetic refrigerators.
E. The level of predictability in the art:
It is not predictable that a magnetic material portion have a dummy that does not generate the heat or cold energy.
F. The amount of direction provided by the inventor:
The specification recites “a magnetic material portion that includes a magnetic substance but does not generate the heat energy or cold energy even when the rotor rotates”.
not from the compressor into the cold finger as low-pressure fluid as claimed.
H. The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the
disclosure:
It does not appear that there is any amount of experimentation that would be useable to
determine how to make or use the invention which has a magnetic material portion which has a magnetic substance which does not generate the heat energy or cold energy as all magnetic materials reactor in some way magnetocalorically.
Based on the above analysis the claims are considered not enabled by the specification. The claims require the presence of a magnetic material portion, which would have a magnetic substance but also require that that magnetic material “does not generate heat energy or cold energy” and while this could be read that they do not generate heat or cold energy at the moment when the rotor is not passing them, this is not how the claim is written or would be reasonably interpreted which is supported by the language in the specification of “a magnetic material portion that includes a magnetic substance but does not generate the heat energy or cold energy even when the rotor rotates. No specific material has been cited in the specification and no explanation of how a magnetic substance would not be able to generate heat or cold energy. As such it is clear that the claim is requiring both the presence of a magnetic substance but also that the magnetic substance does not generate heat or cold energy when exposed to the magnet on the rotary shaft. This specific language is not enabled by the specification because the specification provides no teaching or working example of how such magnetic substance can exist without generating heat or cold energy and no direction is provided by the inventor and it does not appear that any quantity of experimentation would result in being able to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. As such based on the analysis of the Wands factors, one of ordinary skill in the art could not
make and use the claimed invention without exercising undue experimentation, therefore the claimed
invention is not enabled.
Claim 18 recites “the plurality of magnetic material portions include at least one dummy that does not generate the heat energy or the cold energy” which is not enabled by the specification. The factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998) are set forth below.
A. The breadth of the claims:
The breadth of the claims are drawn to a refrigerator with a magnetic array that dummy magnetic portions.
B. The nature of the invention:
A magnetic refrigerator.
C. The state of the prior art:
The state of the prior art does not understand how a magnetic material portion would not be able to generate heat energy or cold energy.
D. The level of one ordinary skill in the art:
A designer of magnetic refrigerators.
E. The level of predictability in the art:
It is not predictable that a magnetic material portion have a dummy that does not generate the heat or cold energy.
F. The amount of direction provided by the inventor:
The specification recites “a magnetic material portion that includes a magnetic substance but does not generate the heat energy or cold energy even when the rotor rotates”.
not from the compressor into the cold finger as low-pressure fluid as claimed.
H. The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the
disclosure:
It does not appear that there is any amount of experimentation that would be useable to
determine how to make or use the invention which has a magnetic material portion which has a magnetic substance which does not generate the heat energy or cold energy as all magnetic materials reactor in some way magnetocalorically.
Based on the above analysis the claims are considered not enabled by the specification. The claims require the presence of a magnetic material portion, which would have a magnetic substance but also require that that magnetic material “does not generate heat energy or cold energy” and while this could be read that they do not generate heat or cold energy at the moment when the rotor is not passing them, this is not how the claim is written or would be reasonably interpreted which is supported by the language in the specification of “a magnetic material portion that includes a magnetic substance but does not generate the heat energy or cold energy even when the rotor rotates. No specific material has been cited in the specification and no explanation of how a magnetic substance would not be able to generate heat or cold energy. As such it is clear that the claim is requiring both the presence of a magnetic substance but also that the magnetic substance does not generate heat or cold energy when exposed to the magnet on the rotary shaft. This specific language is not enabled by the specification because the specification provides no teaching or working example of how such magnetic substance can exist without generating heat or cold energy and no direction is provided by the inventor and it does not appear that any quantity of experimentation would result in being able to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. As such based on the analysis of the Wands factors, one of ordinary skill in the art could not
make and use the claimed invention without exercising undue experimentation, therefore the claimed
invention is not enabled.
Claims 5-9, 19-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 uses the phrase “cold air supply” with the nonce term “apparatus” which results in the claim being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f); however, the specification has not provided sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function resulting in the limitation lacking written description.
Claim 6 uses the phrase “magnetic susceptibility adjusting” with the nonce term “portion” which results in the claim being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f); however, the specification has not provided sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function as “inserting and withdrawing the ferromagnetic substance” alone is not sufficient to provide such written description.
Claim 19 uses the phrase “magnetic susceptibility adjusting” with the nonce term “portion” which results in the claim being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f); however, the specification has not provided sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function as “inserting and withdrawing the ferromagnetic substance” alone is not sufficient to provide such written description.
Claims 2-5, 7-14, 20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-20 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 limitation “cold air supply apparatus” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification has not provided sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function and as such it is unclear what is required by the claim limitation. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that as long as cold air is supplied somehow using the rotating magnetic array device the limitation is met. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “generating a magnetic field” in lines 7-8 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the magnetic field generator is configured to generate a magnetic field.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “generating heat energy and the cold energy” in lines 10-11 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the magnetic material portions are configured to generator heat energy and cold energy.
Claim 1 recites “on a circumference based on the rotary shaft” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how a circumference is based on the rotary shaft other than a circumference of the rotary shaft. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the magnetic material portions are arranged circumferentially around the central axis of the rotary shaft.
Claim 2 recites “an arrangement relationship” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what an arrangement relationship is. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the plurality of magnetic material portion and the plurality of magnetic poles are not in rotation symmetry with respect to the overall configuration of the apparatus.
Claim 3 recites “a number of the plurality of magnetic poles is a prime number” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what this limitation is reciting. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted to be that the total number of overall magnetic poles is a prime number.
Claim 4 recites “the plurality of magnetic material portions include at least one dummy that does not generate the heat energy or the cold energy” which is not enabled by the specification and as such is indefinite as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are as it is unclear how a magnetic material portion can be configured to not generate heat energy or cold energy. In view of the enablement and this indefiniteness, the scope of claim 4 is considered to be so indefinite as to preclude examination on the merits for this reason and other reasons listed below as it would require considerable speculation about the meaning of the terms employed in the claim as well as assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.06.
The term “nearly equal” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The way the claim is written it is not possible determine what qualifies as “nearly equal”. Further, the specification and claims do not describe any specific materials that would result in one having ordinary skill in the art being able to ascertain what the magnetic susceptibilities are.
Claim limitation “magnetic susceptibility portion” in claims 6 and 19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification has not provided sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function as “inserting and withdrawing the ferromagnetic substance” alone is not sufficient. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 7 recites “so that a motor current for rotating the magnetic field generator is minimum” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what is required by the claims for the motor current is minimum. Or the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that torque for the motor and the changing magnetic susceptibility are related.
Regarding Claim 7, the recitation of “wherein the magnetic susceptibility adjusting portion changes the magnetic susceptibility” in line 1-2 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the magnetic susceptibility portion is configured to change the magnetic susceptibility.
Regarding Claim 8, the recitation of “wherein the magnetic susceptibility adjusting the portion changes a magnetic susceptibility of a dummy facing one of the plurality of magnetic poles, from among the at least one dummy, when the magnetic field generator is rotated” in line 1-3 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the magnetic susceptibility portion is configured to change the magnetic susceptibility.
Regarding Claim 9, the recitation of “wherein the magnetic susceptibility adjusting portion changes the magnetic susceptibility of the at least one dummy by inserting a first amount of magnetic substance corresponding to a second amount of magnetic substance inserted in the plurality of heat generators into each of the at least one dummy” in line 1-4 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the magnetic susceptibility portion is configured to change the magnetic susceptibility.
Claim 15 recites “on a circumference based on the rotary shaft” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how a circumference is based on the rotary shaft other than a circumference of the rotary shaft. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the magnetic material portions are arranged circumferentially around the central axis of the rotary shaft.
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation of “that extracts cold energy” in line 6 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” This limitation is also indefinite as no previous cold energy has been recited for the plurality of heat generators. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the magnetic field generator is configured to generate a magnetic field and the heat generators are configured to produce cold energy.
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation of “generating a magnetic field” in line 6 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the magnetic field generator is configured to generate a magnetic field.
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation of “generating heat energy and the cold energy” in line 9 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the magnetic material portions are configured to generator heat energy and cold energy.
Claim 15 recites “a plurality of heat generators for generating heat energy and the cold energy” in which is considered indefinite as claim 15 has already required a plurality of heat generators so it is unclear if these are the same or different heat generators and . For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to the same plurality of heat generators.
Claim 16 recites “an arrangement relationship” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what an arrangement relationship is. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the plurality of magnetic material portion and the plurality of magnetic poles are not in rotation symmetry with respect to the overall configuration of the apparatus.
Claim 17 recites “a number of the plurality of magnetic poles is a prime number” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what this limitation is reciting. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted to be that the total number of overall magnetic poles is a prime number.
Claim 18 recites “the plurality of magnetic material portions include at least one dummy that does not generate the heat energy or the cold energy” which is not enabled by the specification and as such is indefinite as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are as it is unclear how a magnetic material portion can be configured to not generate heat energy or cold energy. In view of the enablement and this indefiniteness, the scope of claim 18 is considered to be so indefinite as to preclude examination on the merits for this reason and other reasons listed below as it would require considerable speculation about the meaning of the terms employed in the claim as well as assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.06.
The term “nearly equal” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The way the claim is written it is not possible determine what qualifies as “nearly equal”. Further, the specification and claims do not describe any specific materials that would result in one having ordinary skill in the art being able to ascertain what the magnetic susceptibilities are.
Regarding Claim 20, the recitation of “wherein the magnetic susceptibility adjusting the portion changes a magnetic susceptibility of a dummy facing one of the plurality of magnetic poles, from among the at least one dummy, when the magnetic field generator is rotated” in line 1-3 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the magnetic susceptibility portion is configured to change the magnetic susceptibility.
Claims 10-14 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
While this is meant to be a comprehensive list of all issues in regard to 35 USC 112 in the claims, due to the length and nature of the claims, it may not be possible to indicate every issue in regard to 35 USC 112 and the Applicant is requested to perform a thorough review of the claims for any outstanding issues in regard to 35 USC 112. The applicant is also requested to proof-read any future amendments for any potential issues in regard to 35 USC 112 that can arise from the amendments due to the complexity of the claims.
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:
cold air supply apparatus in claim 1,
cold energy extracting device in claim 1, understood to be a refrigerant circuit,
magnetic susceptibility adjusting portion,
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.
The limitation “not facing a center of the magnetic pole” is understood in view of the specification (see paragraph 13) is understood to refer to a magnetic material portion which faces the direction of the pole but is not aligned down the magnet in a way that it faces the center of the pole (31a as compared to 31w in Figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US PG Pub 20110192833), hereinafter referred to as Muller and further in view of Zimm et al. (US PG Pub 20140165595), hereinafter referred to as Zimm.
With respect to claim 1, Muller teaches a refrigerator (Figures 2-3) comprising:
a rotating magnetic array device (Figure 3),
wherein the rotating magnetic array device compress:
a magnetic field generator including a plurality of magnetic poles generating a magnetic field (the magnetic arrangement formed by four permanent magnets 4 which have opposite polarities, paragraph 36, and thus there are a plurality of poles), and being rotatable about a rotary shaft (the magnetic arrangement s rotated around a central axis A, paragraph 35, seen in figure A to include a shaft)
a plurality of magnetic material portions including a plurality of heat generators generating heat energy and the cold energy according to rotation of the magnetic field generator (the magnetocaloric elements 2 which alternate heating and cooling based on the magnetic flux caused by the rotation, paragraph 35), and the plurality of magnetic material portions are arranged on a circumference based on the rotary shaft (as seen in the figure the magnetocaloric elements are spaced around the device), so as to simultaneously include a first magnetic material portion facing a center of one of the plurality of magnetic poles (the respective magnetocaloric element aligned with the center of the magnet, would be facing the center of the pole) a second magnetic material portion facing one of the plurality of magnetic poles and not facing a center of the magnetic pole (the magnetocaloric material on either side of the one facing the magnet directly), and a third magnetic material portion facing a space between two of the plurality of magnetic poles (as can be seen in figure 3, there are three magnetocaloric materials between each aligned magnetocaloric material, the central one which is facing a space between poles).
Muller does not teach a main body provided with at least one storage chamber; and a cold air supply apparatus provided with the rotating magnetic array device and a cold energy extracting device for extracting cold energy generated by the rotating magnetic array device and supplying the cold energy to the storage chamber.
Zimm teaches a magnetic refrigerator can provide cooling to a refrigerator compartment using a magnetic refrigeration system, with magnetocaloric material, heat transfer fluid and heat exchangers (paragraph 10, Figure 5) where a cold side heat exchanger is cooled by a heat transfer fluid that has been cooled by the magnetocaloric bed (paragraph 38) where air cooled by the CHEX is introduced into one of the compartments of the refrigerator (clm19).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the specific refrigeration process that the system of Muller is used to have included a refrigerator which has compartments (storage chambers) where using a refrigeration cycle cooling is provided to a heat exchanger to cool air for one of the compartments based on the teaching of Zimm since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having common knowledge in the art would consider the possible systems that a magnetic refrigeration system (which is what Muller teaches) is utilized in an considered it obvious to have applied it to a known system as a suitable way of utilizing the refrigeration generated.
Claims 4-9 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
With respect to claim 15, Muller teaches a magnetic cooling apparatus (Figures 2-3) comprising:
a rotating magnetic array device including a plurality of heat generators (the magnetic arrangement formed by four permanent magnets 4, which has magnetocaloric elements 2 which alternate heating and cooling, and the magnetic arrangement s rotated around a central axis A, paragraphs 35-36, seen in figure A to include a shaft);
wherein the rotating magnetic array device comprises: a magnetic field generator including a plurality of magnetic poles generating a magnetic field (the magnetic arrangement formed by four permanent magnets 4 which have opposite polarities, paragraph 36, and thus there are a plurality of poles), and being rotatable about a rotary shaft (the magnetic arrangement s rotated around a central axis A, paragraph 35, seen in figure A to include a shaft),
a plurality of magnetic material portions including a plurality of heat generators generating heat energy and the cold energy according to rotation of the magnetic field generator (the magnetocaloric elements 2 which alternate heating and cooling based on the magnetic flux caused by the rotation, paragraph 35), and the plurality of magnetic material portions are arranged on a circumference based on the rotary shaft (as seen in the figure the magnetocaloric elements are spaced around the device), so as to simultaneously include a first magnetic material portion facing a center of one of the plurality of magnetic poles (the respective magnetocaloric element aligned with the center of the magnet, would be facing the center of the pole) a second magnetic material portion facing one of the plurality of magnetic poles and not facing a center of the magnetic pole (the magnetocaloric material on either side of the one facing the magnet directly), and a third magnetic material portion facing a space between two of the plurality of magnetic poles (as can be seen in figure 3, there are three magnetocaloric materials between each aligned magnetocaloric material, the central one which is facing a space between poles).
Muller does not teach a cold energy extracting device that extracts cold energy when one of the plurality of heat generators generates the cold energy.
Zimm teaches a magnetic refrigerator can provide cooling to a refrigerator compartment using a magnetic refrigeration system, with magnetocaloric material, heat transfer fluid and heat exchangers (paragraph 10, Figure 5) where a cold side heat exchanger is cooled by a heat transfer fluid that has been cooled by the magnetocaloric bed (paragraph 38) where air cooled by the CHEX is introduced into one of the compartments of the refrigerator (clm19).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the specific refrigeration process that the system of Muller is used to have included a refrigerator where using a refrigeration cycle cooling is provided to a heat exchanger to cool air for one of the compartments based on the teaching of Zimm since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having common knowledge in the art would consider the possible systems that a magnetic refrigeration system (which is what Muller teaches) is utilized in an considered it obvious to have applied it to a known system as a suitable way of utilizing the refrigeration generated.
Claims 18-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller/Zimm and further in view of Schroeder (US PG Pub 20200256592), hereinafter referred to as Schroeder.
With respect to claim 2, Muller does not teach wherein an arrangement relationship between the plurality of magnetic material portions and the plurality of magnetic poles is not in rotational symmetry. It can be noted that Muller teaches that other configurations are suitable (paragraph 36) but does not teach specific ones).
Shroeder teaches a magnetic arrangement for a heat pump system for providing heating and cooling (paragraph 23) that only a portion of the working unit which is full of caloric material (paragraph 31) effected by the magnet is within the field at any one time and specifically shows one in which half of the working unit is within the field circumferentially (paragraph 35) by the formation of the magnets (paragraph 34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of arranging the magnets in the positioning as shown by Muller to have arranged them as shown by Shroeder where circumferentially the magnets are activating half of the magnetocaloric material at one time since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (magnets arranged in the shape of Muller) for another (magnets arranged in the shape of Shroeder) to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known ways of activating only some of the magnetocaloric material at the same time for the same purpose of providing heating or cooling it would have been prima facie obvious to substitute one for the other. Having the magnets arranged in a semi-circle configuration to cover only half of the magnetocaloric materials at a time would result in a lack of rotational symmetry between the plurality of magnetic material portions and the plurality of magnetic poles.
With respect to claim 16, Muller does not teach wherein an arrangement relationship between the plurality of magnetic material portions and the plurality of magnetic poles is not in rotational symmetry. It can be noted that Muller teaches that other configurations are suitable (paragraph 36) but does not teach specific ones).
Shroeder teaches a magnetic arrangement for a heat pump system for providing heating and cooling (paragraph 23) that only a portion of the working unit which is full of caloric material (paragraph 31) effected by the magnet is within the field at any one time and specifically shows one in which half of the working unit is within the field circumferentially (paragraph 35) by the formation of the magnets (paragraph 34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of arranging the magnets in the positioning as shown by Muller to have arranged them as shown by Shroeder where circumferentially the magnets are activating half of the magnetocaloric material at one time since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (magnets arranged in the shape of Muller) for another (magnets arranged in the shape of Shroeder) to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known ways of activating only some of the magnetocaloric material at the same time for the same purpose of providing heating or cooling it would have been prima facie obvious to substitute one for the other. Having the magnets arranged in a semi-circle configuration to cover only half of the magnetocaloric materials at a time would result in a lack of rotational symmetry between the plurality of magnetic material portions and the plurality of magnetic poles.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller/Zimm and further in view of Rule et al. (US PG Pub 20190063795), hereinafter referred to as Rule.
With respect to claim 3, Muller does not teach wherein a number of the plurality of magnetic poles is a prime number It can be noted that Muller teaches that other configurations are suitable (paragraph 36) but does not teach specific ones).
Rule (Figure 11A) teaches a magnetic refrigeration device can have magnets which form two poles (81A/81B) formed by two pole pieces (211A/211B) (paragraph 55).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of utilizing four permanent magnets as shown in Muller to based on the teaching of Rule used two only two permanent magnets which act as opposing poles since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (four pole based system) for another (two pole based system) to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known configurations for arranging poles within a magnetic refrigerator it would have been prima facie obvious to have only two poles (which is a prime number) in Muller instead of four.
With respect to claim 17, Muller does not teach wherein a number of the plurality of magnetic poles is a prime number It can be noted that Muller teaches that other configurations are suitable (paragraph 36) but does not teach specific ones).
Rule (Figure 11A) teaches a magnetic refrigeration device can have magnets which form two poles (81A/81B) formed by two pole pieces (211A/211B) (paragraph 55).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of utilizing four permanent magnets as shown in Muller to based on the teaching of Rule used two only two permanent magnets which act as opposing poles since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (four pole based system) for another (two pole based system) to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known configurations for arranging poles within a magnetic refrigerator it would have been prima facie obvious to have only two poles (which is a prime number) in Muller instead of four.
Claim(s) 10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller/Zimm and further in view of Iwami et al. (US Patent No. 9893571), hereinafter referred to as Iwami.
With respect to claim 10, Muller does not teach wherein each of the plurality of magnetic poles comprises: a magnet arrangement including a plurality of magnets having different magnetization directions; and a central magnetic pole including a magnetic substance and being at least partially located on an outer side with respect to the magnet arrangement in a radial direction.
Iwami teaches a rotating machine using permanent magnets having main magnets and auxiliar magnets (title, Figure 1) where auxiliar magnets are placed on either side of each main magnet, with magnetization direction of the main magnet in a radial direction and auxiliar magnets having magnetization directions facing N-pole main magnets and facing away from S-pole main magnets (Column 4, lines 1-17) in order to reduce the weight of the main magnets without decreasing the output torque of the machine and reduce the overall cost (Column 2, line 63 – Column 3, line 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided in Muller on either side of each permanent magnet (4) of Iwami provided auxiliar magnets, where the magnetization direction of the permanent magnet is radial and the for the n-pole permanent magnets had the magnetization direction facing the sides of the permanent magnet inward and the s-pole magnets had it facing sideways away from the permanent magnet based on the teaching (and configuration) shown in Iwami whereby using auxiliar magnets in this way would allow for maintaining the overall desired operation of the magnet system but allow for a reduction in the weight of the main magnets which can also result in a decrease in the overall cost. As Muller teaches four permanent magnets, the spacing would still be present in gaps formed between auxiliar magnets that oppose each other on sides of the auxiliary magnets in the same way as if Iwami only had four permanent magnets compared to the 8 permanent shown, with the smaller auxiliar magnets up against the sides of the respective permanent magnets. The permanent magnet is the central magnetic pole and is on an outer side with respect to the magnet arrangement in a radial direction.
With respect to claim 12, Muller as modified teahces wherein the central magnetic pole includes an outer end portion at a side of the magnetic material portion and an inner end portion at a side of the magnet arrangement in the radial direction, and a width of the outer end portion is less than a width of the inner end portion (based on what is shown in Muller, the permanent magnet can be seen to be wider than the respective magnetocaloric elements).
With respect to claim 13, Muller as modified teaches wherein, when the central magnetic pole faces one of the plurality of magnetic material portions in the radial direction, a distance between a surface of the central magnetic pole and the magnetocaloric unit of another magnetic material portion adjacent to the magnetic material portion facing the central magnetic pole is greater than a distance between a surface of the central magnetic pole and the magnetocaloric unit of the facing magnetic material portion (the magnetocaloric element 2 that faces the central magnetic pole magnet but no the center of that magnet as described in claim 1 is closer to that respective permanent magnet than the one that is not facing a pole at all).
With respect to claim 14, Muller as modified teaches wherein the plurality of magnets comprise:
a first magnet (the permanent magnet as modified);
second and third magnets that are arranged on an outer circumferential side of the first magnet so as to face each other in a circumferential direction based on the rotary shaft (the auxiliary magnets are in this configuration as modified),
wherein a magnetization direction of the first magnet is in the radial direction based on the rotary shaft (the permanent magnet has the radial magnetization),
wherein magnetization directions of the second and third magnets are opposite to each other in the circumferential direction based on the rotary shaft (this is the configuration of the magnetization of the auxiliar magnets as modified), and wherein the central magnetic pole is located between the second magnet and the third magnet (the auxiliar magnets are on opposing sides of the permanent magnet).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller/Zimm/Iwami and further in view of Fujiwara et al. (JP2016042763), hereinafter referred to as Fujiwara.
With respect to claim 11, Muller as modified does not teach the central pole includes an outer end portion at a side of the magnetic material portion and an inner end portion at a side of the magnetic arrangement in the radial direction, and a width of the outer end portion is less than a width of the inner end portion.
Fujiwara teaches permanent magnets as part of rotating electric machines (paragraph 104, figure 2) where the permanent magnet can have a trapezoidal cross-section or can be bow-shaped. Figure 2 shows the magnet having a trapezoidal cross section with an outer end being narrower than the inner and radially (paragraph 36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have utilized as the permanent magnet of Muller a magnet with a trapezoidal shape as in Fujiwara instead of the shape provided in Muller since it has shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known shapes for which a permanent magnet in a rotating machine can be provided it would be obvious to have used a permanent magnet which is a trapezoidal shape with (in the configuration of Fujiwara with the narrower end radially outward than the wider end) as both the shape of the magnet shown in Muller and Fujiwara are known configurations it would have been prima facie obvious to substitute one magnet shape for the other to provide the magnetic field.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Watanabe et al. (US PG Pub 20150096307) and Yoshiki et al. (JP2019124411).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights