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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/09/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment, the previously set forth claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment except for claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 11-14 and 20 where Applicant did not fully address how the amendment to claim 1 clears the issue of claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 11-14 and 20. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn except for claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 11-14 and 20. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that UENO does not teach the refrigerant cycle apparatus when a heat source unit is changed from one to another.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the recitation of " which is changed from an other heat source unit including an other compressor" is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, Examiner notes that UENO teaches all the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus and the fact that UENO does not disclose that the compressor is a recovered compressor (i.e. previously used) is irrelevant to the patentability of apparatus claim.
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained, modified as necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments regarding the secondary references do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of Ueno with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the secondary references were not relied upon to teach claim 1.
Examiner Notes
For compact prosecution purposes and to expedite prosecution, Examiner suggests Applicant to direct the claim language toward the final product and its structures rather than how it’s being made/assembled, since a product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art.
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 1-9 and 11-21 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “a heat source unit that includes a compressor, which is changed from an other heat source unit including an other compressor” is unclear as to how many compressors/ heat source units does the refrigeration cycle apparatus includes. The above the recitation necessitates to have only one compressor that was previously used in the “other heat source unit” and now is transferred to the new “heat source unit”. Therefore, it is unclear as to what structures are required in the final product that Applicant is claiming in the above recitation. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming that the compressor is a previously used compressor, which is considered a product-by-process limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “wherein the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a discharge temperature discharged from the refrigerant of the compressor in operation under a prescribed condition, or judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on weights of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant to be charged to the refrigerant circuit before charging the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant into the refrigerant circuit” is unclear. First, it is unclear as to what refrigerant Applicant is referring to by “a discharge temperature discharged from the refrigerant” in “wherein the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a discharge temperature discharged from the refrigerant of the compressor”. It’s unclear as to how would the controller judge the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a discharge temperature discharged from the refrigerant. Is the difluoromethane separated from the refrigerant? Or is the controller judging the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a discharge temperature of the refrigerant from the compressor? Second, it is unclear as to what structures are required in the final product that Applicant is claiming in the recitation of “judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on weights of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant to be charged to the refrigerant circuit before charging the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant into the refrigerant circuit” when the final product would comprise one refrigerant that is a mixture of refrigerants and the weighting process is done before and outside (i.e. on an external measurement system 60 that includes the scale) the final product. Therefore, the above recitation appears not to require any additional structures since the above recitation is a system capability limitation that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming that the controller is judging the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a discharge temperature of the refrigerant from the compressor. Examiner also interprets “judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on weights of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant to be charged to the refrigerant circuit before charging the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant into the refrigerant circuit” to read as if Applicant is claiming a system capability that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered, and such interpretation will be applied to the claims that depend on claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “wherein the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on weights of the R410A refrigerant and the R32 refrigerant that are to be charged to the refrigerant circuit before charging” is unclear. It is unclear as to what structures are required in the final product that Applicant is claiming in the above recitation when the final product would comprise one refrigerant that is a mixture of refrigerants and the weighting process is done before and outside (i.e. on an external measurement system 60 that includes the scale) the final product. Therefore, the above recitation appears not to require any additional structures since the above recitation is a system capability limitation that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming a system capability that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered, and such interpretation will be applied to the claims that depend on claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “wherein one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is initially charged to the refrigerant circuit before installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus and additional one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is additionally charged to the refrigerant circuit after the installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus, the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a composition and a weight of the initially charged refrigerant and a composition and a weight of the additionally charged refrigerant” is unclear. It is unclear as to what structures are required in the final product that Applicant is claiming in the above recitation when the final product would comprise one refrigerant that is a mixture of refrigerants and the weighting process is done before and outside (i.e. on an external measurement system 60 that includes the scale) the final product. Therefore, the above recitation appears not to require any additional structures since the above recitation is a system capability limitation that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming a system capability that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered, and such interpretation will be applied to the claims that depend on claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation of “wherein the compressor has an injection port between a suction side and a discharge side of a compression chamber and through which an intermediate-pressure refrigerant that is between a high-pressure refrigerant and a low-pressure refrigerant is injected” is unclear. It is unclear as to what refrigerant Applicant is referring to by “which an intermediate-pressure refrigerant that is between a high-pressure refrigerant and a low-pressure refrigerant is injected” since claim 1 is already reciting “wherein the refrigerant is a mixture of a first refrigerant and a second refrigerant”. Therefore, it is unclear as to how many refrigerants does the refrigeration cycle have. Examiner has attempted to apply prior art to the claims as best they could be understood as presented. Examiner notes that Applicant’s correction of the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 112 may necessitate new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation of “wherein the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on weights of the R410A refrigerant and the R32 refrigerant that are to be charged to the refrigerant circuit before charging” is unclear. It is unclear as to what structures are required in the final product that Applicant is claiming in the above recitation when the final product would comprise one refrigerant that is a mixture of refrigerants and the weighting process is done before and outside (i.e. on an external measurement system 60 that includes the scale) the final product. Therefore, the above recitation appears not to require any additional structures since the above recitation is a system capability limitation that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming a system capability that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation of “wherein one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is initially charged to the refrigerant circuit before installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus and additional one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is additionally charged to the refrigerant circuit after the installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus, the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a composition and a weight of the initially charged refrigerant and a composition and a weight of the additionally charged refrigerant” is unclear. It is unclear as to what structures are required in the final product that Applicant is claiming in the above recitation when the final product would comprise one refrigerant that is a mixture of refrigerants and the weighting process is done before and outside (i.e. on an external measurement system 60 that includes the scale) the final product. Therefore, the above recitation appears not to require any additional structures since the above recitation is a system capability limitation that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming a system capability that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered.
Regarding claim 13, the recitation of “wherein one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is initially charged to the refrigerant circuit before installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus and additional one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is additionally charged to the refrigerant circuit after the installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus, the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a composition and a weight of the initially charged refrigerant and a composition and a weight of the additionally charged refrigerant” is unclear. It is unclear as to what structures are required in the final product that Applicant is claiming in the above recitation when the final product would comprise one refrigerant that is a mixture of refrigerants and the weighting process is done before and outside (i.e. on an external measurement system 60 that includes the scale) the final product. Therefore, the above recitation appears not to require any additional structures since the above recitation is a system capability limitation that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming a system capability that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation of “wherein one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is initially charged to the refrigerant circuit before installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus and additional one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is additionally charged to the refrigerant circuit after the installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus, the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a composition and a weight of the initially charged refrigerant and a composition and a weight of the additionally charged refrigerant” is unclear. It is unclear as to what structures are required in the final product that Applicant is claiming in the above recitation when the final product would comprise one refrigerant that is a mixture of refrigerants and the weighting process is done before and outside (i.e. on an external measurement system 60 that includes the scale) the final product. Therefore, the above recitation appears not to require any additional structures since the above recitation is a system capability limitation that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming a system capability that required the controller to have the ability to simply read the weights numbers that were manually entered.
Regarding claim 20, the recitation of “wherein the compressor has an injection port between a suction side and a discharge side of a compression chamber and through which an intermediate-pressure refrigerant that is between a high-pressure refrigerant and a low-pressure refrigerant is injected,” is unclear. It is unclear as to what refrigerant Applicant is referring to by “which an intermediate-pressure refrigerant that is between a high-pressure refrigerant and a low-pressure refrigerant is injected” since claim 1 is already reciting “wherein the refrigerant is a mixture of a first refrigerant and a second refrigerant”. Therefore, it is unclear as to how many refrigerants does the refrigeration cycle have. Examiner has attempted to apply prior art to the claims as best they could be understood as presented. Examiner notes that Applicant’s correction of the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 112 may necessitate new grounds of rejection.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 7, 9, 15-19, and 20 are rejected at least insofar as they are dependent on rejected claim(s), and therefore include the same error(s).
As a courtesy to Applicant, Examiner has attempted to apply prior art to claims 1-7, 9, 11-19, and 21 as best they could be understood as presented. Examiner notes that Applicant’s correction of the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 112 may necessitate new grounds of rejection. Examiner has not indicated any claims allowable in view of the cumulative issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by UENO (JP2008256254A: Cited by applicant and Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, UENO discloses a refrigeration cycle apparatus (10: see Figure 1) comprising:
a heat source unit (50) that includes a compressor (61: see Figure 1),
which is changed from an other heat source unit including an other compressor (The recitation of " which is changed from an other heat source unit including an other compressor " is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, Examiner notes that UENO teaches all the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus and the fact that UENO does not disclose that the compressor is a recovered compressor (i.e. previously used) is irrelevant to the patentability of apparatus claim);
a refrigerant circuit (15) that and performs a refrigeration cycle by circulating a refrigerant with the compressor of the heat source unit (see at least ¶ [0017]), wherein the refrigerant is a mixture of a first refrigerant and a second refrigerant (see at least ¶ [0011]); and
a controller (80) that:
judges a mixture ratio of difluoromethane (i.e. R32) occupying the refrigerant charged in the refrigerant circuit (see at least ¶ [0059]);
performs control relating to the refrigeration cycle (see at least ¶ [0063]); and
performs the control relating to the refrigeration cycle based on the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane as judged (see at least ¶¶ [0020, 0062-0063, and 0083]),
wherein the first refrigerant is a recovered refrigerant recovered from the other heat source unit before the change to the heat source unit, and the second refrigerant is an additional refrigerant charged to the refrigerant cycle apparatus in the refrigerant circuit (The recitation of " wherein the first refrigerant is a recovered refrigerant recovered from the other heat source unit before the change to the heat source unit, and the second refrigerant is an additional refrigerant charged to the refrigerant cycle apparatus in the refrigerant circuit " is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, Examiner notes that UENO teaches all the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus and the fact that UENO does not disclose that part of the mixture refrigerant is recycled (i.e. previously used) is irrelevant to the patentability of apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 2, UENO further discloses wherein the controller (80) judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a discharge temperature discharged from the refrigerant of the compressor in operation under a prescribed condition (see at least ¶¶ [0065 and 0083]) or judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on weights of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant to be charged to the refrigerant circuit before charging the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant into the refrigerant circuit.
Regarding claim 5, UENO further discloses wherein one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is initially charged to the refrigerant circuit before installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus and additional one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is additionally charged to the refrigerant circuit after the installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus (The recitation of " one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is initially charged to the refrigerant circuit before installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus and additional one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is additionally charged to the refrigerant circuit after the installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus " is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, Examiner notes that UENO teaches all the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus: see at least ¶¶ [0011 and 0034-0040]), the controller (80) judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a composition and a weight (amount) of the initially charged refrigerant (M0) and a composition and a weight of the additionally charged refrigerant (M1: see at least ¶¶ [0011 and 0034-0040]).
Regarding claim 12, UENO further discloses wherein one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is initially charged to the refrigerant circuit before installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus and additional one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is additionally charged to the refrigerant circuit after the installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus (The recitation of " one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is initially charged to the refrigerant circuit before installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus and additional one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is additionally charged to the refrigerant circuit after the installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus " is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, Examiner notes that UENO teaches all the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus: see at least ¶¶ [0011 and 0034-0040]), the controller (80) judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a composition and a weight (amount) of the initially charged refrigerant (M0) and a composition and a weight of the additionally charged refrigerant (M1: see at least ¶¶ [0011 and 0034-0040]).
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.
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 3, 6, 11, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UENO (JP2008256254A: Cited by applicant and Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner) as applied to claims 1, 2 and 5 above, and further in view of SAKAE (JP2017067383A: Cited by applicant and Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 3, UENO teaches that one of refrigerants to be charged to the refrigerant circuit is R32 refrigerant (see at least ¶ [0040]).
UENO does not specifically teach wherein the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant to be charged to the refrigerant circuit are an R410A refrigerant and an R32 refrigerant, and wherein the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on weights of the R410A refrigerant and the R32 refrigerant that are to be charged to the refrigerant circuit before charging.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for a refrigeration cycle apparatus to use an R410A refrigerant and an R32 refrigerant, as evidenced by SAKAE, see at least SAKAE’s ¶ ¶ [0020 and 0008]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigeration cycle apparatus of UENO with wherein the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant to be charged to the refrigerant circuit are an R410A refrigerant and an R32 refrigerant, since as evidenced by SAKAE, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of lowering the toxicity of the refrigerant mixture.
Combining the teaching of UENO, the teaching of SAKAE will result to teach wherein the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on weights of the R410A refrigerant and the R32 refrigerant that are to be charged to the refrigerant circuit since UENO teaches the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane (R32) based on weights (i.e. Amounts) of other refrigerants, (see at least ¶¶ [0011 and 0034-0040]).
Regarding claim 6, UENO teaches that one of refrigerants to be charged to the refrigerant circuit is R32 refrigerant (see at least ¶ [0040]).
UENO does not specifically teach wherein refrigerants to be charged to the refrigerant circuit are an R410A refrigerant and an R32 refrigerant
However, it’s old and well known in the art for a refrigeration cycle apparatus to use an R410A refrigerant and an R32 refrigerant, as evidenced by SAKAE, see at least SAKAE’s ¶ ¶ [0020 and 0008]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigeration cycle apparatus of UENO with wherein refrigerants to be charged to the refrigerant circuit are an R410A refrigerant and an R32 refrigerant, since as evidenced by SAKAE, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of lowering the toxicity of the refrigerant mixture.
Regarding claim 11, UENO teaches that one of refrigerants to be charged to the refrigerant circuit is R32 refrigerant (see at least ¶ [0040]).
UENO does not specifically teach wherein the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant to be charged to the refrigerant circuit are an R410A refrigerant and an R32 refrigerant, and wherein the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on weights of the R410A refrigerant and the R32 refrigerant that are to be charged to the refrigerant circuit before charging.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for a refrigeration cycle apparatus to use an R410A refrigerant and an R32 refrigerant, as evidenced by SAKAE, see at least SAKAE’s ¶ ¶ [0020 and 0008]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigeration cycle apparatus of UENO with wherein the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant to be charged to the refrigerant circuit are an R410A refrigerant and an R32 refrigerant, since as evidenced by SAKAE, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of lowering the toxicity of the refrigerant mixture.
Combining the teaching of UENO, the teaching of SAKAE will result to teach wherein the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on weights of the R410A refrigerant and the R32 refrigerant that are to be charged to the refrigerant circuit since UENO teaches the controller judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane (R32) based on weights (i.e. Amounts) of other refrigerants, (see at least ¶¶ [0011 and 0034-0040]).
Regarding claim 13, UENO further discloses wherein one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is initially charged to the refrigerant circuit before installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus and additional one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is additionally charged to the refrigerant circuit after the installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus (The recitation of " one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is initially charged to the refrigerant circuit before installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus and additional one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is additionally charged to the refrigerant circuit after the installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus " is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, Examiner notes that UENO in view of SAKAE teaches all the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus: see at least ¶¶ [0011 and 0034-0040]),the controller (80) judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a composition and a weight (amount) of the initially charged refrigerant (M0) and a composition and a weight of the additionally charged refrigerant (M1: see at least ¶¶ [0011 and 0034-0040]).
Regarding claim 21, UENO teaches that one of refrigerants to be charged to the refrigerant circuit is R32 refrigerant (see at least ¶ [0040]).
UENO does not specifically teach wherein the first refrigerant is an R410A.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for a refrigeration cycle apparatus to use an R410A refrigerant and an R32 refrigerant, as evidenced by SAKAE, see at least SAKAE’s ¶ ¶ [0020 and 0008]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigeration cycle apparatus of UENO with wherein the first refrigerant is an R410A, and the second refrigerant is an R32, since as evidenced by SAKAE, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of lowering the toxicity of the refrigerant mixture.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UENO (JP2008256254A: Cited by applicant and Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugimoto (US 20150153076 A1: previously Cited).
Regarding claim 9, UENO further teaches wherein the refrigerant circuit includes an expansion valve (67: see ¶ [0025]) in the refrigeration cycle (see Figure 1).
UENO does not specifically teach wherein, when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane judged by the controller is larger than 50 wt%, an opening degree of the expansion valve at a time of starting the compressor is smaller than when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is 50 wt%, and, when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is smaller than 100 wt%, the opening degree of the expansion valve at the time of starting the compressor is larger than when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is 100 wt%.
However, changing the opening degree of the expansion valve based on the composition of the refrigerant is a results effective variable, as recognized by Sugimoto, see in Sugimoto’s Figure 2 and ¶¶ [0027-0029] where Sugimoto indicated that the rotation speed of the compressor and/or the opening degree of expansion valve is adjusted based on the composition of the refrigerant since changing the composition would result in a change in the refrigerant’s physical characteristics.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigeration cycle apparatus of UENO with when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane judged by the controller is larger than 50 wt%, an opening degree of the expansion valve at a time of starting the compressor is smaller than when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is 50 wt%, and, when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is smaller than 100 wt%, the opening degree of the expansion valve at the time of starting the compressor is larger than when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is 100 wt%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Claims 4, 14, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UENO (JP2008256254A: Cited by applicant and Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner) and SAKAE (JP2017067383A: Cited by applicant and Machine Translation was previously provided by Examiner) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of KATO (US 20160084556 A1: previously Cited).
Regarding claim 4, UENO in view of SAKAE does not specifically teach wherein the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane occupying the refrigerant charged in the refrigerant circuit is larger than a mixture ratio of pentafluoroethane occupying the refrigerant charged in the refrigerant circuit.
However, the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane occupying the refrigerant charged in the refrigerant circuit compared to a mixture ratio of pentafluoroethane occupying the refrigerant charged in the refrigerant circuit is a results effective variable, as recognized by KATO, (see at least KATO’s Figure 3 and ¶ [0054-0057]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerant of UENO in view of SAKAE with the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane occupying the refrigerant charged in the refrigerant circuit is larger than a mixture ratio of pentafluoroethane occupying the refrigerant charged in the refrigerant circuit , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 14, UENO further discloses wherein one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is initially charged to the refrigerant circuit before installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus and additional one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is additionally charged to the refrigerant circuit after the installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus(The recitation of " one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is initially charged to the refrigerant circuit before installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus and additional one of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is additionally charged to the refrigerant circuit after the installation of the refrigeration cycle apparatus " is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, Examiner notes that UENO in view of SAKAE and KATO teaches all the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus: see at least ¶¶ [0011 and 0034-0040]), the controller (80) judges the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane based on a composition and a weight (amount) of the initially charged refrigerant (M0) and a composition and a weight of the additionally charged refrigerant (M1: see at least ¶¶ [0011 and 0034-0040]).
Regarding claim 16, UENO in view of SAKAE does not specifically teach wherein when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is greater than a prescribed ratio then a lowest number of revolutions of the compressor is greater compared to the lowest number of revolutions when the mixture ratio is the prescribed ratio.
However, number of revolutions of the compressor when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane judged by the controller is compared to a prescribed ratio is a results effective variable, as recognized by KATO, since the changing the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane in the refrigerant will change the compressor lower limit frequency (see at least KATO’s Figure 3 and ¶ [0054-0057]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerant of UENO in view of SAKAE with when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is greater than a prescribed ratio then a lowest number of revolutions of the compressor is greater compared to the lowest number of revolutions when the mixture ratio is the prescribed ratio, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 17, UENO in view of SAKAE does not specifically teach wherein when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is greater than a prescribed ratio then a lowest number of revolutions of the compressor is greater compared to the lowest number of revolutions when the mixture ratio is the prescribed ratio.
However, number of revolutions of the compressor when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane judged by the controller is compared to a prescribed ratio is a results effective variable, as recognized by KATO, since the changing the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane in the refrigerant will change the compressor lower limit frequency (see at least KATO’s Figure 3 and ¶ [0054-0057]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerant of UENO in view of SAKAE with when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is greater than a prescribed ratio then a lowest number of revolutions of the compressor is greater compared to the lowest number of revolutions when the mixture ratio is the prescribed ratio, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 19, UENO in view of SAKAE does not specifically teach wherein when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is greater than a prescribed ratio then a lowest number of revolutions of the compressor is greater compared to the lowest number of revolutions when the mixture ratio is the prescribed ratio.
However, number of revolutions of the compressor when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane judged by the controller is compared to a prescribed ratio is a results effective variable, as recognized by KATO, since the changing the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane in the refrigerant will change the compressor lower limit frequency (see at least KATO’s Figure 3 and ¶ [0054-0057]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerant of UENO in view of SAKAE with when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is greater than a prescribed ratio then a lowest number of revolutions of the compressor is greater compared to the lowest number of revolutions when the mixture ratio is the prescribed ratio, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Claims 7, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UENO (JP2008256254A: Cited by applicant and Machine Translation is provided by Examiner) as applied to claims 1, 2 and 5 above, and further in view of KATO (US 20160084556 A1: previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, UENO does not specifically teach wherein when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is greater than a prescribed ratio then a lowest number of revolutions of the compressor is greater compared to the lowest number of revolutions when the mixture ratio is the prescribed ratio.
However, number of revolutions of the compressor when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane judged by the controller is compared to a prescribed ratio is a results effective variable, as recognized by KATO, since the changing the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane in the refrigerant will change the compressor lower limit frequency (see at least KATO’s Figure 3 and ¶ [0054-0057]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerant of UENO with when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is greater than a prescribed ratio then a lowest number of revolutions of the compressor is greater compared to the lowest number of revolutions when the mixture ratio is the prescribed ratio, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 15, UENO does not specifically teach wherein when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is greater than a prescribed ratio then a lowest number of revolutions of the compressor is greater compared to the lowest number of revolutions when the mixture ratio is the prescribed ratio.
However, number of revolutions of the compressor when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane judged by the controller is compared to a prescribed ratio is a results effective variable, as recognized by KATO, since the changing the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane in the refrigerant will change the compressor lower limit frequency (see at least KATO’s Figure 3 and ¶ [0054-0057]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerant of UENO with when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is greater than a prescribed ratio then a lowest number of revolutions of the compressor is greater compared to the lowest number of revolutions when the mixture ratio is the prescribed ratio, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 18, UENO does not specifically teach wherein when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane is greater than a prescribed ratio then a lowest number of revolutions of the compressor is greater compared to the lowest number of revolutions when the mixture ratio is the prescribed ratio.
However, number of revolutions of the compressor when the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane judged by the controller is compared to a prescribed ratio is a results effective variable, as recognized by KATO, since the changing the mixture ratio of the difluoromethane in the refrigerant