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:
the limitation “first flow passage switching devices” in claim 2 includes a generic/nonce term “devices” coupled with function “switching” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “first flow passage switching devices” can be implemented in various ways, such as “first two-way valves” [0029]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a first expansion mechanism” in claim 3 includes a generic/nonce term “mechanism” coupled with function “expansion” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a first expansion mechanism” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a first expansion valve” see figures 2-9, 11 and 13-15. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a second expansion mechanism” in claim 3 includes a generic/nonce term “mechanism” coupled with function “expansion” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a second expansion mechanism” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a second expansion valve” see figures 2-9, 11 and 13-15. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a flow control device” in claim 10 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “control” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a flow control device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a flow control valve” [0069]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof; and
the limitation “a second flow switching device” in claim 11 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “switching” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a second flow switching device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a first bypass pipe 90, a second bypass pipe 91, a first on- off valve 92, a second on-off valve 93, a third on-off valve 94, and a fourth on-off valve 95” [0078]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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.
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 1-14 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 1 recites the limitation "the load units" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the plurality of load units”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the load units" in lines 4 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the plurality of load units”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the load units" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the plurality of load units”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the load units" in lines 6 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the plurality of load units”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the relay units" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the plurality of the relay units”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first heat-medium pipes connected to the relay units are connected to each other" in lines 2-3 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear the meaning of the limitation. It is unclear whether the first heat-medium pipes are connected to each other or the relay units are connected to each other. Further clarification is required.
Claims 3-9, 11 and 13 are rejected by the virtual dependency of claim 1.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita (WO2014097870A1) discloses a heat pump apparatus comprising a heat source unit (1), a relay unit (2) connected to the heat source unit (1), and a plurality of load units (2) connected to the relay unit (2; see figures 1-15), wherein
the heat source unit (1) includes a first refrigerant circuit (the first refrigerant circuit which associated with the compressor 10a) in which refrigerant (the refrigerant driven by the compressor 10a) is circulated and a first water heat exchanger (13a) configured to exchange heat with the first refrigerant circuit (see figures 1-15);
the relay unit (3) includes a second refrigerant circuit (the second refrigerant circuit which associated with the compressor 10b) in which the refrigerant is circulated and a second water heat exchanger (13b) configured to exchange heat with the second refrigerant circuit (see figures 1-15).
However, Yamashita fails to disclose the first water heat exchanger, the second water heat exchanger, and the load units are connected by first heat-medium pipes (, whereby a first heat-medium circuit is formed in which a heat medium is circulated.
Regarding claim 1, Takenaka et al. (CN102597658A) discloses a heat pump apparatus comprising a heat source unit (A), a relay unit (B) connected to the heat source unit (A), and a plurality of load units (C) connected to the relay unit (B; see figures 7-22), wherein
the heat source unit (A) includes a first refrigerant circuit (the first refrigerant circuit which associated with the compressor 21) in which refrigerant (the refrigerant driven by the compressor 10a) is circulated (see figures 7-22);
the relay unit (B) includes a second refrigerant circuit (the second refrigerant circuit which associated with the compressor 50) in which the refrigerant is circulated and a second water heat exchanger (40a or 40b) configured to exchange heat with the second refrigerant circuit (see figures 7-22).
However, Takenaka fails to disclose the heat source unit (A) includes a first water heat exchanger (13a) configured to exchange heat with the first refrigerant circuit; and the first water heat exchanger, the second water heat exchanger, and the load units are connected by first heat-medium pipes, whereby a first heat-medium circuit is formed in which a heat medium is circulated
The primary reference Yamashita or Takenaka taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed structure of the heat pump apparatus as required in claims 1-14. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivations to modify the heat pump apparatus of Yamashita or Takenaka in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 1-14 are allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights