DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “thread fastening assembly part” in claims 1 and 8-9 and “air conditioning control part” in claim 9.
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:
“Thread fastening assembly part” has been interpreted in claims 1 and 8-9 according to the corresponding structure described at para. 41 of the specification, and equivalents thereof. “Thread fastening assembly part” has NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for claims 2-7 and 10-12 since claim 2 recites sufficient corresponding structure.
No corresponding structure has been described for “air conditioning control part.” See corresponding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b), below.
“The limitation “electrical connection part” has not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since the term “connection” is deemed to impart particular structure.
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 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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation “air conditioning control part,” which has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above. However, since the disclosure does not describe the corresponding structure of the limitation as required under the statute, Applicant has failed to demonstrate full possession of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention at the effective filing date of the application.
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 1-12 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 “air conditioning control part” in claim 9 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. 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.
In addition:
The limitation “PT” sensor is recited throughout the claims, but never clearly defined. The Specification does state that the PT sensor detects pressure and temperature, so it is believed that that is what the “PT” likely stands for. However, an internet search reveals PT sensor commonly refers to a platinum temperature sensor. Appropriate clarification of what “PT” stands for is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the valve body portion" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that line 2 of the claim recites “a valve body” not “a valve body portion.”
Claims 2-12 are also rejected since they depend from claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “of a pogo pin type.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of what constitutes a pogo pin “type” are not clearly defined by the disclosure.
Claim 8 recites “a main control board” in lines 2-3 of the claim. However, claim 1 already recites “a main control board.” As recited, it is unclear whether these are meant to connote the same or different control boards.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the upper side" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “an electrical connector” in claim 9. However, claim 1 previously recites “an electrical connection part.” As recited, it is unclear whether these are intended to represent the same or different features.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the plurality of valve body-side terminals" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 3 recites “one or more,” not “a plurality.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the portion corresponding to the sensor-side terminals" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the portion corresponding to the thread fastening rotation center axis" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the sensor assembly portion” in lines 2 and 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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) 1-3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2021/0033322 A1).
As per claim 1, Zhang et al. disclose a sensor-integrated expansion valve, comprising:
a PT sensor 50 installed in a sensor hole 260 of a valve body 20 to detect pressure and temperature of refrigerant in a refrigerant flow path 28 (para. 0042; etc.), the PT sensor including a sensor body 51 assembled to the valve body portion around the sensor hole (Figs. 6-7; etc.), a sensing rod 52 inserted from the sensor body into the sensor hole and having an end portion exposed into the refrigerant flow path (Figs. 6-7; etc.), and a main circuit board 12 of the on the valve body;
a thread fastening assembly part 265 configured to threadedly fasten and remove the PT sensor to and from the sensor hole of the valve body (para. 0046); and
an electrical connection part (Fig. 8) configured to constantly electrically connect the sensor circuit board whose position is changed about a thread fastening rotation center axis of the PT sensor depending on the degree of thread fastening of the PT sensor into the sensor hole, to the main circuit board (via constant pressure provided by springs 53 – see Figs. 8, 10; paras. 0044-0047; etc.). Zhang et al. do not teach sensor 50 further comprising a sensor circuit board configured to process data on the pressure and the temperature of the refrigerant detected by the sensing rod. However, such is considered a simple control expedient would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of placing the detected data in digital transferable form to send to the main control board.
As per claim 2, Zhang et al .disclose wherein the thread fastening assembly part includes a female thread portion 265 formed inside the sensor hole, although does not explicitly show a male thread portion formed on an outer circumference surface of the sensing rod of the PT sensor so as to be threadedly fastened to the female thread portion of the sensor hole. Official notice is taken that a partner male thread on the sensing rod would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of effectively mating with the female thread in order to hold the sensor in place.
As per claim 3, Zhang et al. disclose wherein the electrical connection part includes one or more sensor-side terminals 53 protruding from the sensor circuit board of the PT sensor toward the main circuit board above the of the sensor body 51, and one or more valve body-side terminals 121 formed on the main circuit board of the valve body so as to be electrically connected to the sensor-side terminals, and the valve body-side terminals are configured to be constantly connected to the sensor-side terminals whose positions are changed about the thread fastening rotation center axis of the PT sensor depending on the degree of thread fastening of the PT sensor into the sensor hole (sensor-side terminals 53 are connected to and rotate with sensor body 53; and stay connected to valve body terminal by spring action).
As per claim 8, Zhang et al. do not teach wherein the sensor circuit board is built into a head portion of the sensor body and is electrically connected to a main circuit board on the valve body side installed on the upper side. However, the particular placement of the sensor circuit board is considered a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application effectively providing the temperature and pressure signals to the main control board.
As per claim 9, Zhang et al. wherein the sensor circuit board transmits the data on the pressure and temperature of the refrigerant detected by the sensing rod to the main circuit board, and allows the transmitted data on the pressure and temperature of the refrigerant to be transmitted again to an air conditioning control part through an electrical connector. Regarding transmitting the data to the main control board, such is generally taught by Zhang et al. (para. 0042; etc.) but again does not explicitly teach the use of a sensor circuit board to facilitate the signal transmission. Again, such is considered a simple control expedient would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of placing the detected data in digital transferable form to send to the main control board. Regarding allowing “the transmitted data on the pressure and temperature of the refrigerant to be transmitted again to an air conditioning control part through an electrical connector” see rejections set forth above under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b). Further, since there is nothing in Zhang et al. that would prevent the main circuit board 12 from transmitting the sensed data to another controller, such additional transmission is considered to be “allowed.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 10-12 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:
As per claim 4 (and claims 5-7 and 10-12 which depend therefrom), Zhang et al. disclose wherein the sensor-side terminals protrude from the sensor circuit board toward the main circuit board above the sensor body, and are arranged radially at certain intervals in a radial outward direction about the thread fastening rotation center axis of the sensor body relative to the sensor hole (Fig. 10; etc.), and the valve body-side terminals 121 are formed on the main circuit board 12 of the valve body so that the valve body-side terminals can be electrically connected to the sensor-side terminals. However, there is no teaching or suggestion in the art to further modify the system of Zhang et al. wherein the valve body-side terminals have a pattern such that the valve body-side terminals can be constantly connected to the sensor-side terminals whose positions are changed about the thread fastening rotation center axis of the PT sensor depending on the degree of thread fastening of the PT sensor into the sensor hole.
.
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