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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the reply filed on December 10, 2025.
Receipt and entry of the amended abstract and the amended claims filed on December 10, 2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 14, and 16 through 20 remain pending. Of these claims 1, 2, 4 through 14, 16, and 17 are all as amended directly or indirectly. Claims 3 and 15 have been cancelled, whereas claims 18 through 20 remain withdrawn as noted in greater detail below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have obviated the objections to the drawings as set forth by the examiner in the previous Office action.
While applicant’s amendments to the abstract have obviated the previously set forth objections to the abstract, minor informalities remain in the amended abstract as noted in greater detail below.
Similarly, while applicant’s amendments to the claims have obviated the previously set forth objections to the claims, additional informalities remain in the amended claims as specified in greater detail below.
While applicant’s amendments to the claims have generally obviated the previously set forth indefiniteness rejections of the claims as noted by applicant’s remarks filed on December 10, 2025, the examiner has found that new indefiniteness issues have been introduced into the claims via the amendments. This is addressed in greater detail by the examiner in the corresponding section of the instant Office action.
Applicant's arguments filed on December 10, 2025 with regard to the prior art rejections of the claims as set forth in the previous Office action by the examiner have been fully considered but they are generally not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examiner has interpreted the limitations “operating as a condenser or evaporator” in claim 1 as necessarily including operating as only a condenser or only as an evaporator, implying that this interpretation by the examiner is incorrect and/or unsupportable. However, applicant is first of all reminded that pending claims are to be interpreted as broadly as reasonable during examination, with no limitations from the specification being imported into the claims. Furthermore, claims are to be generally interpreted using plain meaning. The aforementioned limitations as written only require that the subject heat exchanger operate as one of a condenser or an evaporator based on the refrigeration circulation direction and do not explicitly require that the subject heat exchanger operate as each of a condenser and an evaporator depending on the refrigeration direction. Therefore, applicant’s arguments in this regard are not found to be persuasive and the examiner continues to interpret the aforementioned limitations in the same general manner as previously. However, due to the amendments to the claims, the examiner has applied the Suzuki et al. reference in a slightly different manner than before, as noted in greater detail below with regard to the anticipation rejection of the corresponding claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the previously applied Suzuki et al. and Iritani et al. references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the first heat exchanger condenses the refrigerant circulating from an outlet of the four-way reversing valve to the first heat exchanger and evaporates the refrigerant circulating from the first heat exchanger to an inlet of the four-way reversing valve as newly recited in base claim 1) are not recited in the claims as previously rejected. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). And, although the currently rejected claims do recite the aforementioned newly added limitations, these limitations are both indefinite as noted in greater detail below and optional/functional without setting forth specifically required structural elements necessary to perform the recited functions as claimed, and thus cannot be relied upon for patentability of the claims.
Election/Restriction
Claims 18 through 20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention of Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 26, 2024.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on April 22, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The amended abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains grammatical and/or idiomatic informalities (i.e., “based on a circulation direction of the refrigerant” should be replaced with “based on the circulation direction of the refrigerant”; and, “according [sic] the circulation direction of the refrigerant” should be replaced with “based on the circulation direction of the refrigerant”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 14, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the refrigerant” [claim 1, line 13; claim 1, line 16; claim 1, line 17] should be replaced with “refrigerant” for improved readability and clarity; and, “configured to control” [claim 16, line 6] should be replaced to “provided to control” in order to more readily align with the original claim language while clarifying the original claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4 through 14, 16, and 17 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.
With regard to base claim 1 as amended, it is not clear which particular structures are intended to be encompassed if any and which ones are intended to be excluded if any by the newly added functional limitations “wherein the first heat exchanger condenses the refrigerant circulating from an outlet of the four-way reversing valve to the first heat exchanger and evaporates the refrigerant circulating from the first heat exchanger to an inlet of the four-way reversing valve”, thus rendering indefinite claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom. In addition to a lack of clarity as to which if any particular structural features are required by the aforementioned newly added limitations to base claim 1, there is also per se insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for each of “the refrigerant circulating from an outlet of the four-way reversing valve to the first heat exchanger” and of “the refrigerant circulating from the first heat exchanger to an inlet of the four-way reversing valve”, thus rendering the claim and all claims depending therefrom even further indefinite with regard to the metes and bounds of protection sought thereby.
Claim 4 has been amended to recite that the positive temperature coefficient heater is “connected to a flow path from the first heat exchanger” but the newly added limitations fail to clearly set forth whether the claimed flow path is an air flow path or a refrigerant flow path, for example, and furthermore fail to recite which particular structure or structures if any are associated with the flow path, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim. Please note that as broadly interpreted as required for pending claims, and given the plain meaning of the term “flow path”, a “flow path” is understood to refer to the path that a particular fluid can take through space and does not inherently confer any particular structure (i.e., while a duct or a pipe can enclose a flow path, a flow path can be through a space filled with ambient air and absent any structure whatsoever, for example). Therefore, reciting that a positive coefficient heater is specifically “connected to a flow path from the first heat exchanger” fails to clearly set forth which structures if any are intended to be necessarily included and which ones are intended to be necessarily excluded thereby.
Claim 16 has been amended to recite the limitations “a chilled control valve configured to control a flow path to the battery chiller”. However, a control valve disposed in a flow path is inherently configured to control the flow path. Therefore, it is not clear which additional specific structural features (if any) are required by the newly added limitations, adding to the indefiniteness of the claim. If no additional specific structural features are required thereby, then the aforementioned limitation is unnecessarily redundant. If, however, specific additional structural features are intended to be required by the newly added limitations beyond those generally encompassed by any control valve, then it is not at all clear which particular additional features are intended to be encompassed thereby, rendering the claim further indefinite.
Any claim not specifically cited is at least rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Currently, claim 4 depends from cancelled claim 3 and thus fails to further limit the subject matter of any pending claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,704,219).
With regard to base claim 1 as written, Suzuki et al. discloses a heating, ventilation and air conditioner of an electric vehicle (i.e., column 1, lines 18-20), the air conditioner comprising: a compressor 22 configured to compress a refrigerant; a four-way reversing valve 23 connected to four flow paths including a first flow path connected to a discharge end 22a of the compressor 22 and a second flow path connected to a suction end 22b of the compressor 22; a first heat exchanger/outdoor heat exchanger 24 connected to the four-way reversing valve 23; a second heat exchanger 11 having a first end at least indirectly connected to the first heat exchanger 24 and having a second end at least indirectly connected to the four-way reversing valve 23 and configured to operate as an evaporator based on the circulation direction of the refrigerant as shown (note that alternately, condenser 12 could be readable on the second heat exchanger as recited in the claim as broadly interpreted as required); wherein the four-way reversing valve 23 is configured to circulate refrigerant introduced through the first flow path to one of the first heat exchanger 24 and the second heat exchanger 11 or 12 under the control of the controller 40, wherein the first heat exchanger 24 condenses refrigerant circulating from an outlet of the four-way reversing valve 23 to the first heat exchanger 24 (i.e., see at least column 11, lines 8-17) and evaporates refrigerant circulating from the first heat exchanger 24 to an inlet of the four-way reversing valve 23 (i.e., see at least column 8, lines 33-41 and column 11, lines 24-32). Note that the various conditional and alternative limitations in base claim 1 are not per se required by the claim and that pending claims are to be interpreted broadly as required.
With regard to claim 2 as written, Suzuki et al. further discloses that the four-way reversing valve 23 circulates the refrigerant introduced from one of the first heat exchanger/outdoor heat exchanger 24 or the second heat exchanger 11 or 12 through the second flow path connected to the suction end 22b of the compressor 22 under the control of the controller 40 as shown in the drawings.
With regard to claims 5 and 6, Suzuki et al. further discloses an additional valve or first control valve 29b configured to open and close a flow path from the four-way valve 23 to the first heat exchanger/outdoor heat exchanger 24 and a second control valve 27 which is operable as an expansion valve (see at least column 6, lines 19-24), all under the control of the controller 40.
The reference thus reads on the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 4, 7 through 14, 16, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten without patentably significant broadening to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The additional related and/or prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763