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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2025 was filed on the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 “expansion valve” 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference character “12” has been used to designate both “a positioning aid” and “an anti-rotation device” in par. 34.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation of “the circumferential opening” (claim 5, line 3) is believed to be --the at least one circumferential opening--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“anti-rotation device” → a radial projection introduced into the outside of the sleeve 5, which engages in a congruent indentation introduced in the recess of the base body 2 is 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.
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 3 and 6 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 3 recites the limitation "the end face" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been examined as --an end face--.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the circumferential openings" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been examined as --the at least one circumferential opening--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheek (US 4,039,003).
Regarding claim 1, Cheek discloses an arrangement (refer to figs.1-5) for a temperature control circuit, comprising a base body (16), in which at least one channel (44) for the transport of temperature control medium is introduced, and at least one check valve (refer to fig.3), which at least limits the transport of temperature control medium in one flow direction of the channel (refer to col.2, lines 8-12), wherein the check valve is formed as an insert (through upper horizontal surface 38 as in fig.3) and is at least partially accommodated in the base body (16).
Regarding claim 2, Cheek meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Cheek discloses wherein the base body (16) is formed as a distribution channel (refer to fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, Cheek meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Cheek discloses wherein the check valve has a sleeve (20), a piston (refer to dart 26 and col.4, lines 7-9, wherein the dart is forced with a piston-like action) and a fastening section (refer to cap 68), wherein at least one opening (52) is introduced in the sleeve (20) on the circumferential side, wherein the sleeve (20) has a further opening (56) on an end face facing away from the fastening section (68), wherein the piston (26) is allocated to the further opening (56 as in fig.2).
Regarding claim 4, Cheek meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Cheek discloses wherein multiple circumferential openings (52, fig.3) are introduced in the sleeve (20).
Regarding claim 5, Cheek meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Cheek discloses wherein temperature control medium flows in via the further opening (56 via inlet 14) and flows out via the at least one circumferential opening (52).
Regarding claim 6, Cheek meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Cheek discloses wherein an annular channel (refer to fig.2 below) is introduced in the base body (16), the annular channel being allocated to the at least one circumferential opening (8).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Cheek meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Cheek discloses wherein at least one anti-rotation device (74) is introduced into the fastening section (68) and into the base body (refer to fig.2) respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Cheek meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Cheek discloses wherein a conical receiving section (refer to fig.2 below) for a pipe connection is formed from the fastening section (wherein throat portion 36 which forms the conical receiving section is formed from the fastening section as can be seen from fig.2). For clarity, the recitation “for a pipe connection” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
PNG
media_image2.png
483
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Cheek meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Cheek discloses wherein the fastening section (68) is equipped with a positioning aid (76).
Regarding claim 11, Cheek meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Cheek discloses wherein a transverse channel (channel that allows fluid flow through outflow passageway 48) is provided which runs transversely to the sleeve (20).
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.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheek (US 4,039,003) in view of McCarra (US 11,365,820).
Regarding claim 12, Cheek meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Cheek discloses the base body, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the base body is formed of metallic material.
However, McCarra teaches a system and method for piston check valves, wherein a base body is formed of metallic material (refer to col.3, lines 19-20, wherein body 12 may be formed of a corrosion-resistant material, such as a metal material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheek such that the base body is formed of metallic material in view of the teachings by McCarra, in order to provide a corrosion-resistant material.
Regarding claim 13, Cheek meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Cheek discloses the sleeve and the fastening section, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sleeve and the fastening section are formed of metallic material.
However, McCarra teaches a system and method for piston check valves, wherein a sleeve (refer to portion 90) and a fastening section (14) are formed of metallic material (refer to col.3, lines 19-20, col.4, line 67, and col.5, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheek such that the sleeve and the fastening section are formed of metallic material in view of the teachings by McCarra, in order to provide a corrosion-resistant material.
Claim(s) 10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheek (US 4,039,003) in view of Hirota (US 2003/0213516).
Regarding claims 10 and 14-15, Cheek meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Cheek discloses at least one channel and the temperature control medium, but fails to explicitly disclose a temperature control circuit which is a coolinq circuit having the temperature control medium being a refrigerant based on CO2, and wherein an expansion valve is allocated to the at least one channel.
However, Hirota teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide a temperature control circuit (refer to fig.1) which is a coolinq circuit having a temperature control medium being a refrigerant based on CO2 (refer to par.9), and including at least one check valve (9) and an expansion valve (4) allocated to at least one channel of the temperature control circuit, in order to provide an automotive air conditioner (refer to par.3).
One having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration would recognize that providing CO2 as the temperature control medium, it will provide a clean, safe and efficient cooling solution with minimal environmental impact.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cheek by providing a temperature control circuit which is a coolinq circuit having the temperature control medium being a refrigerant based on CO2, and wherein an expansion valve is allocated to the at least one channel, in order to provide an automotive air conditioner and a clean, safe and efficient cooling solution with minimal environmental impact in view of the teachings by Hirota along with the knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ANA M VAZQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
