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 movement mechanism for moving an airflow" in claim 14.
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.
The “movement mechanism” is described in the specification as a fan (see paragraph 32).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oomura (US 2007/0209789 A1) and in view of Takayama (US 2023/0134655 A1) and further in view of Shepherd (US 3845637 A).
In regards to claims 1 and 8, Oomura teaches a method of operating a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system (operation of air conditioning system, see figs. 1-3 and abstract) comprising: monitoring a parameter associated with a refrigerant (monitoring temperature FrTE, TAM via temperature sensors 36 and 31 respectively) at the evaporator (7) of a closed loop circuit (associated components of circuit 1) of the HVAC system, wherein the parameter is used to determine a temperature associated with the refrigerant at a heat exchanger (monitoring temperature FrTE associated with evaporator 8 and refrigerant flow through evaporator 8, see paragraph 78 and figs. 1-2; Also see temperature monitored via temperature sensors 31, 36, paragraphs 47 and 63);
comparing the parameter (temperature FrTE; TAM) of the refrigerant HVAC system with a first threshold (Tea; TAMa) to determine that the current operating condition of the HVAC system is associated with frost formation/accumulation at the heat exchanger (comparing temperature FrTE with a threshold temperature TEa to determine if evaporator 8 of the HVAC system is in an operating condition where the evaporator is frosting up/not, see paragraphs 59-64, figs. 3, 7; and paragraphs 78, 84, 62, and 65; Also see comparison of TAM with threshold TAMa to determine if evaporator is frosting up/not, figs. 7 and 11); adjusting a flow rate of an airflow (by adjusting the opening degree of mix air damper 15, see paragraph 57) across the heat exchanger (7) in response to temperature (measured by sensor 36) of the HVAC system (see paragraphs 57-58).
In addition, after determining the frosting up condition based on parameter temperature being less than the first threshold temperature (FrTE<Tea, paragraph 62and 78; Also see comparison between TAM and threshold TAMa, figs. 7 and 11), during a defrost operation flow rate of airflow (by blower 21) across evaporator heat exchanger (8) is adjusted (adjusting the blower 21 blowing rate RrOBW+gamma state based on the determination that evaporator 8 is frosting up, see paragraphs 86-87; Also see opening damper 24 and operating the blower 21 while stopping compressor, see paragraph 76 and fig. 1), which depends on the determination that parameter temperature being less than the first threshold temperature (FrTE<Tea, paragraph 62) and adjusting airflow across evaporator (8) without compressor operation (compressor stopped, paragraph 76) increases the surface temperature of the evaporator (8), which may also increase the temperature of the airflow at an outlet of the evaporator heat exchanger (see paragraph 76). Oomura also teaches determining a current operating condition of the HVAC system at step S24, which is associated with formation of frost at the heat exchanger as determined by steps S24-S25, in direct response to comparing the parameter of the refrigerant with a first threshold at step S23, because steps S24-S25 directly rely on step S23, see fig. 7).
Also Oomura teaches that the HVAC system comprises a compressor (compressor 2, see paragraph 96 and fig. 1); and Oomura teaches determining that current operating condition of the HVAC system is associated with frost formation/accumulation at the heat exchanger (frosting up at evaporator 8 is determined, see paragraph 78, which implies accumulation of frost) based on the parameter (frost condition determined based on FrTE temperature at step S23, fig. 7; Also see figs. 7-10 and paragraphs 62, 65); and adjusting a flow rate of an airflow across the heat exchanger (adjusting the blowing rate of blower 21 to approach RrOBW+gamma state, see paragraphs 86-87) while maintaining a constant cooling capacity at the heat exchanger (cooling capacity at the heat exchanger evaporator 8 is constant at any given instant) in response to determining that the HVAC system is in the operating condition associated with frost accumulation at the heat exchanger (blowing rate adjusted based on evaporator 8 frosting up, see paragraphs 86-87 and claims 4-5), wherein the flow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger is adjusted while maintaining a constant cooling capacity at the heat exchanger (adjusting the blowing rate of blower 21 to approach RrOBW+gamma state, see paragraphs 86-87; wherein cooling capacity at the heat exchanger evaporator 8 is constant at any given instant).
However, Oomura does not explicitly teach that the parameter belongs to the refrigerant of the refrigeration cycle and the parameter is a saturated suction temperature.
Takayama discloses a method of operating an HVAC system with a compressor (2); monitoring a saturation suction temperature parameter of the refrigerant (suction saturation temperature of a refrigerant flowing through the refrigeration circuit 4, 3, 8, see paragraphs 51, 76, 57), where the parameter is associated with an evaporator (heat exchanger 5, 33) and the parameter is used to determine a temperature of the refrigerant at the evaporator (suction saturation temperature of a refrigerant corresponding to superheat of refrigerant at heat exchanger 5, see paragraph 76); and wherein the suction saturation temperature parameter of the refrigerant resulting in the formation of frost and the parameter is directly associated with frost formation and accumulation (see paragraph 57, 94).
It would have been obvious for one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of monitoring in the method/system of Oomura by including saturated suction temperature as a parameter of refrigerant that is monitored and causes frost formation and is associated with the frost formation heat exchanger based on the teachings of Takayama for the advantage of accurately and correctly determining state of the refrigerant at the evaporator where frost accumulation is likely in order to protect efficiency of the HVAC system by only performing defrost as necessary and possibly more reliably prevent freezing of the secondary fluid at the heat exchanger 33 (see paragraph 94, Takayama).
Oomura is silent about the temperature increase at the heat exchanger.
However, Shepherd teaches a heater (H1, see figs. 11 and 9) for melting frost accumulated on the evaporator (see fig. 2), wherein the thermostatic control is configured to adjust airflow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger (37, figs. 1-9) by operation of fan 15 (fig. 9) to increase temperature of the airflow at an outlet of the heat exchanger evaporators due to operation of the heater (see H1, col. 6, lines 15-27; and fig. 9).
It would have been obvious for one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/HVAC system of Oomura by adjusting the flow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger while maintaining a constant cooling capacity at the heat exchanger to increase a temperature of the airflow at an outlet of the heat exchangers based on the teachings of Shepherd in order to maintain the temperature of the return air from the compartments/spaces at or below the initiation temperature (see col. 6, lines 15-27, Shepherd).
In regards to claim 3, Oomura as modified further teaches that when the parameter exceeds the threshold, the HVAC system is not in the operating condition associated with frost accumulation at the heat exchanger (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; see response ‘NO’ at step S23, fig. 7 and paragraph 78, Oomura).
In regards to claim 4, Oomura as modified further teaches that when the parameter is equal to or below the threshold, the HVAC system is in the operating condition associated with frost accumulation at the heat exchanger (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; see step S23, fig. 7 and paragraph 78; and TE being equal to TEa, creating a judgment of TE judgement value 1, fig. 10, Oomura).
In regards to claim 5, Oomura as modified further teaches that wherein adjusting the flow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger further comprises increasing the flow rate of the airflow (increasing the blowing rate of the blower 21, see paragraph 86-88).
In regards to claim 6, Oomura as modified further teaches that wherein the flow rate of the airflow is increased by a fixed percentage (increasing the blowing rate by gamma value, see paragraphs 86-88, where the predetermined gamma value represents a fixed percentage of the blowing rate).
In regards to claim 7, Oomura as modified further teaches that wherein the flow rate of the airflow is incrementally increased (airflow rate of the blower 21 is incrementally increased, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 86-88) until the HVAC system is not in the operating condition associated with frost accumulation at the heat exchanger (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Oomura teaches increasing speed of blower 21 to find target blowing rate until evaporator 8 is not frosting up, see paragraph 86-87; Also see figs. 3-8, where the frost judging is repeated and airflow readjusted).
In regards to claim 9, Oomura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8 and further teaches sensing a temperature (temperature sensor 6a, see paragraph 45) between an exit of an evaporator (8) and an inlet of the compressor (6a between evaporator 8 and compressor 2, see fig. 1).
In regards to claim 10, Oomura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8 except sensing a pressure between an exit of an evaporator and an inlet of the compressor.
However, Takayama teaches sensing a pressure (pressure sensor 26) between an exit of an evaporator (5) and an inlet of the compressor (2, see figs. 1-2 and paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious for one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Oomura by including sensing a pressure between an exit of an evaporator and an inlet of the compressor based on the teachings of Takayama for the advantage of accurately and correctly determining suction saturation temperature, suction superheat and state of the refrigerant at the evaporator exit in order to determine the changes in frost formation state at the evaporator.
In regards to claim 11, Oomura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the parameter is the temperature of the refrigerant within the heat exchanger (temperature of the refrigerant detected by sensor 6a at the evaporator outlet, where the temperature detected by sensor 6a represents the temperature of the refrigerant that was within the heat exchanger, see fig. 1 and paragraph 45).
In regards to claims 12 and 13, Oomura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches determining if the HVAC system having an adjusted flow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger is in the operating condition associated with frost accumulation at the heat exchanger; and adjusting the flow rate of the airflow by reducing the flow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger in response to determining that the HVAC system is not in the operating condition associated with frost accumulation at the heat exchanger (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Oomura teaches if evaporator 8 is in the frosting up operating condition or not, before and after increasing the blowing rate of the blower 21, see paragraphs 86-88; Also blowing rate of the blower is reduced to RrOBW rate when evaporator 8 is not frosting up, see paragraphs 86-88 and fig. 4).
In regards to claims 14 and 15, Oomura teaches a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system (operation of air conditioning system, see figs. 1-3 and abstract) comprising: a closed loop circuit (refrigeration cycle 1, see fig. 1 and paragraph 41) having refrigerant circulating therethrough (see paragraphs 41-42), the closed loop circuit including a compressor (2) and a heat exchanger (evaporator 8); a movement mechanism (blower 21) for moving an airflow across the heat exchanger (see fig. 1 and paragraphs 45, 49); a sensor (sensors 6a, 36, 5a, 30, see paragraphs 42, 45 and 47) operable to sense a parameter of the closed loop circuit (temperature sensors, see paragraphs 45, 47, 49, 51, and 53); and a controller (45) operable to adjust a flow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger (increasing the blowing rate of the blower 21, see paragraphs 86-88) while maintaining a constant cooling capacity at the heat exchanger (cooling capacity at the heat exchanger evaporator 8 is constant at any given instant) directly in response to the parameter being less/equal to the threshold (blowing rate adjusted based on evaporator 8 frosting up, see paragraphs 86-87 and claims 4-5) to maintain a temperature of the refrigerant at the heat exchanger above freezing (blowing rate of the blower increased to a value that would allow evaporator 8 to absorb large amount of heat and keep the evaporator at a temperature where it is defrosted, see paragraph 87); wherein the flow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger is adjusted while maintaining a constant cooling capacity at the heat exchanger (adjusting the blowing rate of blower 21 to approach RrOBW+gamma state, see paragraphs 86-87; wherein cooling capacity at the heat exchanger evaporator 8 is constant at any given instant). Also, Oomura teaches adjusting a flow rate of an airflow (by adjusting the opening degree of mix air damper 15, see paragraph 57) across the heat exchanger (7) in response to temperature (measured by sensor 36) of the HVAC system (see paragraphs 57-58) and comparing the parameter (temperature FrTE; TAM) of the HVAC system with a first threshold (Tea; TAMa) to determine whether the HVAC system is in the current operating condition associated with frost accumulation at the heat exchanger based on the comparison of the parameter (comparing temperature FrTE with a threshold temperature Tea to determine if evaporator 8 is frosting up/not, see paragraphs 59-64, figs. 3, 7; and paragraphs 78, 84, 62, and 65; Also see comparison of TAM with threshold TAMa to determine if evaporator is frosting up/not, figs. 7 and 11). Oomura also teaches determining a current operating condition of the HVAC system at step S24, which is associated with formation of frost at the heat exchanger as determined by steps S24-S25, directly by comparing parameter of the refrigerant with a first threshold at step S23, because steps S24-S25 directly rely on step S23, see fig. 7). In addition, after determining the frosting up condition based on parameter temperature being less than the first threshold temperature (FrTE<Tea, paragraph 62and 78), during a defrost operation flow rate of airflow (by blower 21) across evaporator heat exchanger (8) is adjusted (adjusting the blower 21 blowing rate RrOBW+gamma state based on the determination that evaporator 8 is frosting up, see paragraphs 86-87; Also see opening damper 24 and operating the blower 21 while stopping compressor, see paragraph 76 and fig. 1), which depends on the determination that parameter temperature being less than the first threshold temperature (FrTE<Tea, paragraph 62) and adjusting airflow across evaporator (8) without compressor operation (compressor stopped, paragraph 76) increases the surface temperature of the evaporator (8), which may also increase the temperature of the airflow at an outlet of the evaporator heat exchanger (see paragraph 76). Also Oomura teaches that the HVAC system comprises a compressor (compressor 2, see paragraph 96 and fig. 1).
However, Oomura does not explicitly teach that the parameter belongs to the refrigerant of the refrigeration cycle and the parameter is a saturated suction temperature.
Takayama discloses a method of operating an HVAC system with a compressor (2); monitoring a saturation suction temperature parameter of the refrigerant (suction saturation temperature of a refrigerant flowing through the refrigeration circuit 4, 3, 8, see paragraphs 51, 76, 57), where the parameter is associated with an evaporator (heat exchanger 5, 33) and the parameter is used to determine a temperature of the refrigerant at the evaporator (suction saturation temperature of a refrigerant corresponding to superheat of refrigerant at heat exchanger 5, see paragraph 76); and wherein the suction saturation temperature parameter of the refrigerant resulting in the formation of frost and the parameter is directly associated with frost formation and accumulation (see paragraph 57, 94).
It would have been obvious for one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of monitoring in the method/system of Oomura by including saturated suction temperature as a parameter of refrigerant that is monitored and causes frost formation and is associated with the frost formation heat exchanger based on the teachings of Takayama for the advantage of accurately and correctly determining state of the refrigerant at the evaporator where frost accumulation is likely in order to protect efficiency of the HVAC system by only performing defrost as necessary and possibly more reliably prevent freezing of the secondary fluid at the heat exchanger 33 (see paragraph 94, Takayama).
Oomura is silent about the temperature increase at the heat exchanger.
However, Shepherd teaches a heater (H1, see figs. 11 and 9) for melting frost accumulated on the evaporator (see fig. 2), wherein the thermostatic control is configured to adjust airflow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger (37, figs. 1-9) by operation of fan 15 (fig. 9) to increase temperature of the airflow at an outlet of the heat exchanger evaporators due to operation of the heater (see H1, col. 6, lines 15-27; and fig. 9).
It would have been obvious for one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/HVAC system of Oomura by adjusting the flow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger while maintaining a constant cooling capacity at the heat exchanger to increase a temperature of the airflow at an outlet of the heat exchangers based on the teachings of Shepherd in order to maintain the temperature of the return air from the compartments/spaces at or below the initiation temperature (see col. 6, lines 15-27, Shepherd).
In regards to claim 16, Oomura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15 and further teaches sensing a temperature (temperature sensor 6a, see paragraph 45) between an exit of an evaporator (8) and an inlet of the compressor (6a between evaporator 8 and compressor 2, see fig. 1).
In regards to claim 17, Oomura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14 except sensing a pressure between an exit of an evaporator and an inlet of the compressor.
However, Takayama teaches sensing a pressure (pressure sensor 26) between an exit of an evaporator (5) and an inlet of the compressor (2, see figs. 1-2 and paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious for one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Oomura by including sensing a pressure between an exit of an evaporator and an inlet of the compressor based on the teachings of Takayama for the advantage of accurately and correctly determining suction saturation temperature, suction superheat and state of the refrigerant at the evaporator exit in order to determine the changes in frost formation state at the evaporator.
In regards to claim 18, Oomura as modified further teaches that wherein adjusting the flow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger further comprises increasing the flow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger (increasing the blowing rate of the blower 21 to increase flow across evaporator 8, see paragraph 86-88) when the parameter is equal to or below the threshold (control system 45 determines that evaporator 8 is frosting up when detected temperature FrTE is below the threshold TEa, see paragraph 78 and 85-88, wherein the blower speed is increased when evaporator 8 is frosting up).
In regards to claim 19, Oomura as modified further teaches that the controller (45) is operable to decrease the flow rate of the airflow across the heat exchanger (see paragraphs 86-88 and fig. 4) when the parameter is equal to or exceeds a second threshold (reducing the blowing rate of the blower to RrOBW when evaporator 8 is not frosting up, see paragraphs 86-88 and fig. 4; and when the detected temperature 36 is not lower than TEa, which is equivalent to equal to or exceeds the temperature threshold TEa, see paragraphs 78, 84, the blower speed is reduced to RrOBW). Also the controller of Oomura that is configure to reduce the speed/flow rate of the airflow across the evaporator 8 by operation of the blower 21 when the detected temperature is equal to or above the threshold TEa, would also be configured to reduce the speed of the blower 21 for any detected temperature above the second threshold of TEa or TEa + b (where b is a constant positive value).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/31/2026 in Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument, "Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite frost at the heat exchanger in direct response to comparing of only the parameter of the refrigerant with…" examiner points out that the amended claims 1 or 14 do not include the phrase "of only". Since the claims do not contain comparison of only the parameter, the prior art is not required to teach the comparison of only the parameter.
In response to applicant's argument, "comparison of detection temperature FrTE with temperature Tea is not sufficient to determine the presence/absence of frost, rather comparison of temperature TAM with a threshold and a target air blowing rate are required for determining frost condition in Oomura," examiner maintains the rejection of claims and points out that claims 1 and 14 require “determining an operating condition associated with frost in response to comparison of a parameter;” however, the “comprising claims 1 and 14” do not exclude other steps of parameters also being compared before reaching a determination about formation of frost. In addition, Oomura teaches a direct comparison of temperature TAM with a threshold TAMa directly leads to the determination of a frost formation condition (see step S24 for comparison and S25 or S26 directly following step S24, fig. 7, Oomura). Therefore, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument, "Takayama teaches comparison between outside temperature and refrigerant temperature not between refrigerant temperature and a threshold and Takayama and Oomura inventions have very different purposes," examiner maintains the rejection of claims and points out that the claimed comparison of refrigerant temperature with a threshold does not require the threshold to be a refrigerant fluid temperature, therefore, a comparison of refrigerant temperature with an outside temperature in Takayama still reads on the comparison of temperatures as claimed in claims 1 and 14. In addition, as pointed out by the applicant (paragraph 1, page 4, Remarks), Takayama controls defrost operation based on the measured/compared refrigerant temperature and as evident from the rejection of claims, Oomura determines the frost formation state based on the comparison of refrigerant temperature with a threshold temperature; one of skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Takayama with Oomura in order to protect efficiency of the HVAC system by only performing defrost as necessary and possibly more reliably prevent freezing of the secondary fluid at the heat exchanger. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument, "Shepherd fails to cure the defects of Oomura with respect to claims 1 and 14," examiner maintains the rejection of claims and points out that Shepherd is not relied upon to teach the comparison of the refrigerant temperature with a threshold and the determination of the formation of frost directly based on the comparison of the refrigerant parameter with the threshold. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
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 MERAJ A SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3027. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 9:00-1:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 571-270-7740. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MERAJ A SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights