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: “a decompression device” in claim 1.
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.
After reviewing the specification, the decompression device appears to be drawn to an expansion valve or known equivalents (per paragraph [0003]).
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim without the term “substantially.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cur (US 9,714,785) in view of Morimoto (US 2022/0194167 – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Cur teaches a refrigerant unit (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a refrigerant circuit including a compressor (12, Fig. 1, see col. 5, lines 30-45), a first heat exchanger (24, Fig. 1, see col. 5, lines 30-45), a decompression device (20, Fig. 1, see col. 5, lines 30-45), and a second heat exchanger (24, Fig. 1, see col. 5, lines 30-45) as a component; and
a single support member that collectively supports the component of the refrigerant circuit (defined as the housing shown in at least Fig. 3),
wherein the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are disposed with the decompression device interposed therebetween (see Fig. 1).
Cur does not teach:
a connection portion between a refrigerant channel connected to the decompression device and the first heat exchanger is disposed so as to be shifted in a vertical direction from a connection portion between a refrigerant channel connected to the decompression device and the second heat exchanger.
Morimoto teaches a connection module (Morimoto, Title) between a refrigerant channel connected to a decompression device (Morimoto, 14a, Fig. 3, paragraph [0047]) and a first heat exchanger (Morimoto, 12, Fig. 3, paragraph [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Cur with a connection portion between the decompression device and first heat exchanger, as taught by Morimoto, in order to help regulate temperature (Morimoto, Abstract).
Through the combination, Cur as modified teaches “disposed so as to be shifted in a vertical direction from a connection portion between a refrigerant channel connected to the decompression device and a second heat exchanger,” as Morimoto teaches a second heat exchanger 24 and the limitation regarding the vertical direction are a mere matter of configuration/intended use that the resultant structure is capable of meeting.
Regarding claim 2, Cur as modified teaches the refrigerant unit according to claim 1, wherein the decompression device has a refrigerant inlet and a refrigerant outlet disposed at different heights in a vertical direction (capable of being met by the combination as noted in the rejection of claim 1, see Fig. 3 which shows 20 oriented vertically), and
the connection portion between the refrigerant channel connected to the decompression device and the first heat exchanger is disposed so as to be shifted from the connection portion between the refrigerant channel connected to the decompression device and the second heat exchanger by a difference in height between the refrigerant inlet and the refrigerant outlet (see Cur, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Cur as modified teaches the refrigerant unit according to claim 1, further comprising:
a channel module including, as an integrated component, part of a refrigerant channel in the refrigerant circuit (defined as the channels within 80 shown in Fig. 3 of Morimoto),
wherein the channel module has a pair of connection portions each connected to a refrigerant inlet and a refrigerant outlet of the decompression device (see at least 83b and 83e in Fig. 3 of Morimoto which are connected to the inlet/outlet of 14a), and a first refrigerant channel connecting one of the pair of connection portions and the first heat exchanger is disposed substantially parallel with a second refrigerant channel connecting the other one of the pair of connection portions and the second heat exchanger (see Morimoto, 83a, 83e/d/f in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Cur as modified teaches the refrigerant unit according to claim 3, wherein the pair of connection portions, a connection portion between the first refrigerant channel and the first heat exchanger, and a connection portion between the second refrigerant channel and the second heat exchanger are disposed on the same plane in the channel module (see Fig. 3 of Morimoto, the plane being defined as one which translates horizontally through the cycle shown In Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Cur as modified teaches the refrigerant unit according to claim 1, wherein a fixing position at which the first heat exchanger is fixed to the support member is at a position different in a vertical direction from a fixing position at which the second heat exchanger is fixed to the support member (the positions of 24 in side by side in Fig. 1 of Cur and are sufficient as different vertical directions as an orthogonal plane that runs through each heat exchanger is at a different position).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)-270-5054. 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
