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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 24-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 4493193) in view of Rawlings (US 5081848) and Gault (US 9797611).
Regarding claim 24,
Referring to Fig. 1, Fisher teaches a heat pump system 10 for conditioning air in a space (e.g. an indoors), comprising: a compressor 12 configured to circulate a refrigerant through a refrigerant circuit (e.g. the circuit comprising at least conduit 22a);
a refrigerant-to-air load heat exchanger 16 disposed on the refrigerant circuit operable as either a condenser or an evaporator to exchange heat between the refrigerant and the air, the air conditioned thereby for use in the space (e.g. the indoors);
a refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger 20 disposed on the refrigeration circuit operable as either a condenser or an evaporator to exchange heat between the refrigerant and outside air;
a refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger 24 disposed on the refrigeration circuit operable as either a condenser or an evaporator to exchange heat between the refrigerant and a heat exchange liquid 26 (e.g. a ground water source, see col 6, lines 1-2;
first 2-way isolation valve 102 disposed on the refrigeration circuit and configured to inactivate the refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger 20 when the first 2-way isolation valve [are] is closed and to activate the refrigerant- to-air source heat exchanger 20 when the first 2-way isolation valve 20 [are] is open (see col 6, lines 40-64, col 7, lines 43-56);
third 2-way isolation valve 104 disposed on the refrigeration circuit and configured to inactivate the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger 24 when the third 2-way isolation valve [are] is closed and to activate the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger 24 when the third 2-way isolation valve [are] is open (see col 6, lines 48-51, col 7, lines 5-15);
a second expansion valve 18 disposed on the refrigerant circuit and positioned between the refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger 20 and the first 2-way isolation valve 102;
and a reversing valve 14 disposed on the refrigerant circuit, the reversing valve including a first port configured to receive the refrigerant from the compressor (e.g. via conduit 12a, not labeled);
a second port configured to convey the refrigerant to or receive the refrigerant from the refrigerant-to-air load heat exchanger 16 (e.g. via conduit 22a, not labeled);
a third port configured to convey the refrigerant to or receive the refrigerant from the refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger 20 when the refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger is active and/or to convey the refrigerant to or receive the refrigerant from the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat 24exchanger when the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger is active (e.g. via conduit 22f, not labeled);
and a fourth port configured to convey the refrigerant to a suction inlet of the compressor (e.g. via conduit 12b, not labeled),
Fisher does not teach a second 2-way isolation valve disposed on the refrigerant circuit and configured to inactivate the refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger 20 when the first and second 2-way isolation valves are closed and to activate the refrigerant- to-air source heat exchanger when the first and second 2-way isolation valves are open;
third and fourth 2-way isolation valves disposed on the refrigeration circuit and configured to inactivate the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger 24 when the third and fourth 2-way isolation valves are closed and to activate the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger when the third and fourth 2-way isolation valves are open,
wherein the third is port configured to convey the refrigerant to or receive the refrigerant from the refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger 20 via the second 2-way isolation valve when the refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger is active and/or to convey the refrigerant to or receive the refrigerant from the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger via the fourth 2-way isolation valve when the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger is active.
In other words, Fisher teaches a single isolation valve to activate or inactive said heat exchangers 20, 24 but not two isolation valves to activate or inactive said heat exchangers 20, 24.
Referring to Fig. 1, Rawlings, directed to a ground source heat exchanger heat pump, teaches ground source heat exchanger 52 comprising a heat exchange conduit array 54 wherein it is recommended also to include isolation valves 82 and 84 at the entry end 86 and exit end 88, respectively, of the ground source heat exchanger 52 for controlling the flow of heat transfer fluid therethrough (see col 4, lines 65-68). Thus, the heat exchanger 52 can be isolated by closing the valves 82, 84 (see col 5, lines 1-2).
Rawlings therefore teaches that it is known in the art to control the flow of heat transfer fluid through a heat exchanger utilizing two isolation valves located at an inlet and outlet of said heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Fisher by Rawlings (e.g. such that heat exchangers 20, 24 comprise first and second 2-way isolation valves 102, 104, and also third and fourth 2-way isolation valves in conduits 22d, 34b) with the motivation of:
adding isolation valve redundancy with the goal of increasing reliability of the system by applying a backup or fail-safe isolation valve; or
preventing any refrigerant from flowing into a heat exchanger (e.g. via conduits 22d, 34b when operating in a cooling mode) when required by a user.
Fisher does not teach that said second expansion valve 18 is an electronic expansion valve.
Gault, directed to a combination air and ground source heat pump, teaches that second expansion valve 106 is an electronic expansion valve 106 (see col 2, lines 36-37, col 4, lines 24-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Fisher by Gault such that said expansion valve is an electronic expansion valve with the motivation of obtaining the known advantages of electronic expansion valves (e.g. more precise control, fast and accurate response to load change, wider part load variation than non-electronic expansion valves, maintaining maximum capacity control even at part loads, or injecting exactly the right amount of refrigerant, etc.).
Fisher also does not teach a first electronic expansion valve disposed on the refrigerant circuit and positioned between the refrigerant-to-air load heat exchanger and both of the first and third 2-way isolation valves 102, 104 (e.g. in conduit 22b);
wherein when the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger 24 is active in either a space heating mode or a space cooling mode, the refrigerant is conveyed through the first expansion valve and not through the second expansion valve 18 before entering the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger, and through the first expansion valve and not through the second expansion valve 18 upon exiting the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger, wherein when the refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger 20 is active in either the space heating mode or the space cooling mode, the refrigerant is conveyed through both the first and second expansion valves.
Gault teaches a first electronic expansion valve 105 disposed on a refrigerant circuit and positioned between a refrigerant-to-air load heat exchanger 14 and a coupling 90 comprising a multi-position solenoid valve (see col 4, lines 5-11, wherein said coupling is analogous to the claimed branching between the claimed first and third 2-way isolation valves);
wherein when a ground source heat exchanger 82 (e.g. analogous to the claimed refrigerant-to liquid source heat exchanger) is active in either a space heating mode or a space cooling mode, the refrigerant is conveyed through the first expansion valve 105 and not through the second expansion valve 106 before entering the ground source heat exchanger 82, and through the first expansion valve 105 and not through the second expansion valve 106 upon exiting the ground source heat exchanger 82, wherein when the refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger 58 is active in either the space heating mode or the space cooling mode, the refrigerant is conveyed through both the first and second expansion valves 105, 106.
Gault teaches that the use of expansion valve 105 associated with indoor heat exchanger 14 regulates refrigerant flow and superheating (e.g. to and from indoor heat exchanger 14, see col 4, lines 20-29).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Fisher by Gault (e.g. to comprise a first electronic expansion valve along conduit 22b and positioned between refrigerant-to-air load heat exchanger 16 and both of the first and third isolation valves 102, 104) with the motivation of further controlling refrigerant flow and superheating (e.g. to and from indoor heat exchanger 16, see Gault, col 4, lines 20-29).
Regarding claims 25-30,
A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is".
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board' s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
It appears that the language of claims 25-30 is a recitation of what the apparatus (e.g. the recited reversing valve) is configured to do and not what the apparatus is as there are no structural attributes of the interrelated components except for the requirement that the reversing valve, in concert with specific isolation valves, is capable of operating in the claimed modes. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, see MPEP 2114. Since the device of Fisher (e.g. the reversing valve) as modified above is capable of operating in the claimed modes, the device of Fisher as modified above meets the claimed limitations of being configured to do so. There is no structural difference between the device of Fisher as modified and the device of Applicant's claims 25-30.
Regarding claim 31,
Fisher as modified above teaches wherein the first and second 2-way isolation valves are positioned directly upstream and downstream, respectively, of the refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger, and wherein the third and fourth 2-way isolation valves are positioned directly upstream and downstream, respectively, of the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 32,
Fisher does not teach a heat pump system including a hydronic heat exchanger instead of the refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger.
However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of, including a hydronic heat exchanger instead of a refrigerant-to-air source heat exchanger is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 33,
Fisher does not teach wherein the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger is a coaxial heat exchanger or a brazed plate heat exchanger, but the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of, a coaxial heat exchanger or a brazed plate heat exchanger is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 34,
Fisher teaches a fan 16b configured to flow air over the refrigerant-to-air load heat exchanger to condition the air in the space.
Regarding claim 35,
Fisher teaches a geothermal source loop attached to the refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger (e.g. ground), the geothermal source loop configured to circulate the heat exchange liquid (e.g. water) and to exchange heat between the heat exchange liquid and a geothermal source (see col 2, lines 23-27, col 6, lines 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Previously entered objections to the drawings are withdrawn. Previously entered claim rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the refrigerant-to-Earth heat exchanger 82 of Gault is not analogous to a refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger. However, Gault is used to teach a first electronic expansion valve, and the analogy between exchanger 82 and a refrigerant-to-liquid source heat exchanger is merely demonstrative as to how the modified circuit of Fisher would work. One of ordinary skill in the art would still look towards Gault to teach a first electronic expansion valve and achieve the advantages as taught by Gault.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crawford, Attari teach the use of two isolation valves at an entrance and exit of a heat exchanger.
Dressler teaches a combined ambient and ground source heat pump.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 PM.
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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763