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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed 09/05/2025. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claims 1-13 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second expansion valve" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the submitted claim language appears to completely omit previous claim language used without indication of cross-out lines or brackets. Specifically, in the claim set submitted on 10/19/2023, the language in lines 9-11 of claim 1 appear to be absent from the most recent claim set submitted on 09/05/2025. It is not entirely clear as to whether or not the removal of language is intentional, however the Examiner will aim to interpret to the best of their abilities in accordance with the previous claim set where necessary to maintain continuity. Correction is required.
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of “...a fifth refrigerant line…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to how a fifth refrigerant line may exist without the existence of a first through fourth lines. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Styles et al. (US 20140208775 A1, hereinafter “Styles”), and further in view of Matsuda et al. (US 20190011148 A1, hereinafter “Matsuda”).
Regarding Claim 1, Styles teaches a cooling/heating vapor injection system [Figs. 1-4] comprising:
a compressor [102] configured to compress and circulate a refrigerant [¶ 0021-0024];
a first branch part [A; See Annotated Fig. 1] into which the compressed refrigerant is introduced to be branched;
a first refrigerant line [124] branched from the first branch part to allow the refrigerant to move therethrough and having a condenser [103] and a first expansion valve [150] disposed thereon [¶ 0018-0019, 0024; Figs. 1-4; apparent from inspection branch 124 extends from annotated junction A];
a first joining [120] part into which the refrigerant passing through the first refrigerant line or the second refrigerant line flows [¶ 0024-0026; Fig. 1; branches 124 and 125 flow into valve 120];
a second refrigerant line [125] branched from the first branch part to allow the refrigerant to move therethrough and having an indoor unit [111] [¶ 0018-0023; Figs. 1-4; apparent from inspection branch 125 extends from annotated junction A];
a gas-liquid separator [152] into which the refrigerant passing through the first joining part is introduced [¶ 0027-0030; branches 124 and 125 converge into valve 120, then flow into separator 152]; and
a second branch part [B; See Annotated Fig. 1] into which the refrigerant passing through the gas-liquid separator is introduced Figs. 1-4; apparent from inspection, junction B branches towards components 107 and 108, separately],
wherein the gas-liquid separator moves a liquid-phase refrigerant to the second branch part and moves a gas-phase refrigerant to the compressor [Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0028-0030, 0040; outlet 154 provides liquid refrigerant to annotated junction B, outlet 153 provides gaseous refrigerant to the compressor].
wherein in a heating mode, refrigerant passing through the compressor moves along the second refrigerant line and is introduced into the gas-liquid separator [¶ 0025; control valve 120 may receive refrigerant from heat exchanger 111 while blocking refrigerant from heat exchanger 103], and
wherein in a cooling mode, the refrigerant passing through the compressor moves along the first refrigerant line and is introduced into the gas-liquid separator [¶ 0025; control valve 120 may receive refrigerant from heat exchanger 103 while blocking refrigerant from heat exchanger 111], and
While Styles teaches that branches 124 and 125 are controlled via valve 120 (similar to a first joining part) in accordance with a plurality of operating modes, so that either branch refrigerant may flow through expansion valve 150 [¶ 0023-0027; Figs. 1-4], Styles does not explicitly teach
wherein the second refrigerant line has a second expansion valve disposed thereon, wherein the first expansion valve is capable of being closed and the second expansion valve is capable of being opened, and wherein the first expansion valve is capable of being opened and the second expansion valve is capable of being closed.
However, Matsuda teaches a refrigeration cycles apparatus [100; Figs. 1-7] comprising a compressor [2], configured to provide refrigerant towards a plurality of heat exchangers [4] arranged in parallel (i.e. from a branch point), wherein each branch with a heat exchanger [4] further comprises an expansion device [8] disposed downstream of said heat exchangers, prior to converging into conduit upstream of additional expansion devices [10 and 12]. Matsuda further teaches that this configuration of expansion devices allows for control of the opening degree of each expansion valve to further control the degree of subcooling at each refrigerant outlet of each heat exchanger [¶ 0052-0055], thus allowing for specific modes of operations correlating to predetermined opening degrees [i.e. at least modes described in ¶ 0050, 0058, 0067, 0077, 0085, 0088, 0094], thereby providing a means for better control over the system. Matsuda further emphasize that each indoor unit [52] individually comprises its own set of sensors [72, 73] and expansion valves [8] [¶ 0038], such that the controller controls the expansion device in a matter according to said sensed values and stored memory configuration [¶ 0054]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide an expansion valve at for heat exchanger outlet) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner (i.e. provide further control over the degree of subcooling), and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. to provide a means to control of the opening degree at each refrigerant outlet of each heat exchanger to further control the degree of subcooling [¶ 0052-0055], thus allowing for specific modes of operations correlating to predetermined opening degrees [i.e. at least modes described in ¶ 0050, 0058, 0067, 0077, 0085, 0088, 0094], thereby providing a means for better control over the system.
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Styles to have wherein the second refrigerant line has a second expansion valve disposed thereon, in view of the teachings of Matsuda, where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to provide a means to control of the opening degree at each refrigerant outlet of each heat exchanger to further control the degree of subcooling, thus allowing for specific modes of operations correlating to predetermined opening degrees, thereby providing a means for better control over the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Styles, as modified, teaches the cooling/heating vapor injection system of claim 1 above and Styles further teaches comprising:
a third refrigerant line [C; See Annotated Fig. 1] branched from the second branch part [B] to allow the refrigerant to move therethrough and having a third expansion valve [107] and an evaporator [113] disposed thereon [¶ 0030, 0034-0035; Figs. 1-4; apparent from inspection] [Alternatively see Matsuda Fig. 1 for equivalent refrigerant line 11 with expansion valve 12 heat exchanger 3, and refrigerant line 9 with expansion valve 10 and heat exchanger 5, wherein the controller may set the opening degree of each expansion valve; ¶ 0070];
a fourth refrigerant line [D; See Annotated Fig. 1] branched from the second branch part [B] to allow the refrigerant to move therethrough and having a fourth expansion valve [108] and a chiller [110] disposed thereon [¶ 0030-0033; Figs. 1-4; apparent from inspection]; and
Matsuda teaches an accumulator [14] configured to separate the refrigerant moving through the third refrigerant line or the fourth refrigerant line [¶ 0029-0031; Figs. 2-3; refrigerant lines 11 and 9 may be considered equivalent third and fourth refrigerant lines, stemming from expansion valves 12 and 10, extending towards heat exchangers 3 and 5, respectively] into a gas-phase refrigerant and a liquid-phase refrigerant and transmit the gas-phase refrigerant to the compressor [¶ 0055; gas refrigerant is sucked into the compressor 2 via accumulator 14].
Regarding Claim 3, Styles, as modified, teaches the cooling/heating vapor injection system of claim 2 above and Matsuda teaches wherein the refrigerant passing through the compressor moves to the first refrigerant line or the second refrigerant line through opening and closing of the first expansion valve or the second expansion valve [at least ¶ 0052; the controller sets the opening degree of the expansion device 8 depending on the operation mode].
Regarding Claim 4, Styles, as modified, teaches the cooling/heating vapor injection system of claim 2 above and Styles teaches wherein the liquid-phase refrigerant separated in the gas-liquid separator and moving to the second branch part moves to the third refrigerant line or the fourth refrigerant line through opening and closing of the third expansion valve or the fourth expansion valve [¶ 0033, 0034; expansion valves 107 and 108 may be configured to provide additional or less refrigerant flow through control of the device according to a plurality of sensors].
Regarding Claim 5, Styles, as modified, teaches the cooling/heating vapor injection system of claim 2 above and Styles teaches wherein a check valve [114] is disposed in a fifth refrigerant line [162] through which the gas-phase refrigerant separated in the gas-liquid separator is introduced into the compressor [¶ 0029, 0049; Figs. 1-4; outlet 153 provides gaseous refrigerant to the compressor 102; it is apparent from inspection that control valve 114 appears to be made of a least a ball check valve, according to the schematic representation of the figures].
Regarding Claim 6, Styles, as modified, teaches the cooling/heating vapor injection system of claim 2 above and Styles teaches wherein the evaporator [113] and the indoor unit [111] are disposed inside an air conditioning case [121] [¶ 0023; Figs. 1-2; disposed within HVAC module 121], and
a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) heater [112] is disposed inside the air conditioning case [¶ 0056; Figs. 1-2; heater 112 disposed within HVAC 121].
Regarding Claim 7, Styles, as modified, teaches the cooling/heating vapor injection system of claim 2 above and Styles teaches wherein in a heating mode,
the third expansion valve is opened and the fourth expansion valve is closed so that the liquid-phase refrigerant passing through the gas-liquid separator moves along the third refrigerant line [¶ 0034; flow may be entirely or partially directed to expansion device 107; also consider combination with expansion valves of Matsuda].
Regarding Claim 8, Styles, as modified, teaches the cooling/heating vapor injection system of claim 2 above and Styles teaches wherein in a cooling mode,
the third expansion valve is closed and the fourth expansion valve is opened so that the liquid-phase refrigerant passing through the gas-liquid separator moves along the fourth refrigerant line [¶ 0050-0052; flow may be entirely or partially directed to expansion device 108; also consider combination with expansion valves of Matsuda].
Regarding Claim 9, Styles, as modified, teaches the cooling/heating vapor injection system of claim 2 above and Styles teaches wherein an air-cooled condenser or a water-cooled condenser is used for the condenser [¶ 0023; condenser 111 may be a refrigerant-to-air heat pump condenser].
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Styles, and further in view of Matsuda, Kim et al. (US 20220088995 A1, hereinafter “Kim”) and Kim (US 20220049780 A1, hereinafter “Kim 780”).
Regarding Claim 10, Styles teaches a vapor injection module [at least 107, 108, 114, 150, 152] comprising:
one check valve [114] and a first [150] expansion valve and third to fourth expansion valves [107, 108];
a gas-liquid separator [31];
a second branch part [B; See Annotated Fig. 1] connecting the third expansion valve and the fourth expansion valve with the gas-liquid separator [Fig. 1; apparent from inspection valve 107 and 108 stem from junction B]; and
a fifth refrigerant line [162] connecting the check valve and the gas-liquid separator [¶ 0029; Fig. 1].
While Styles teaches that branches 124 and 125 are controlled via valve 120 in accordance with a plurality of operating modes, so that either branch refrigerant may flow through expansion valve 150 [¶ 0023-0027; Figs. 1-4], Styles does not explicitly teach a housing in which one check valve and first to fourth expansion valves are disposed from top to bottom, and wherein the gas-liquid separator is disposed to face the housing, and a first joining part disposed in a central region of the gas-liquid separator and connecting the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve with the gas-liquid separator, wherein the second branch part is disposed in a lower region of the gas-liquid separator, and wherein the fifth refrigerant line is disposed in an upper region of the gas-liquid separator,
However, Matsuda teaches a refrigeration cycles apparatus [100; Figs. 1-7] comprising a compressor [2], configured to provide refrigerant towards a plurality of heat exchangers [4] arranged in parallel (i.e. from a branch point), wherein each branch with a heat exchanger [4] further comprises an expansion device [8] disposed downstream of said heat exchangers, prior to converging into conduit upstream of additional expansion devices [10 and 12]. This conversion point, between expansion valves 8, 10 and 12, is considered to be a first joining part. When in combination with Styles, one may ordinarily replace the expansion valve of Styles with the plurality of expansion valves and joining part of Matsuda to arrive at the claimed configuration, thus connecting to expansion valves to separator 152. Matsuda further teaches that this configuration of expansion devices allows for control of the opening degree of each expansion valve to further control the degree of subcooling at each refrigerant outlet of each heat exchanger [¶ 0052-0055], thus allowing for specific modes of operations correlating to predetermined opening degrees [i.e. at least modes described in ¶ 0050, 0058, 0067, 0077, 0085, 0088, 0094], thereby providing a means for better control over the system. Matsuda further emphasize that each indoor unit [52] individually comprises its own set of sensors [72, 73] and expansion valves [8] [¶ 0038], such that the controller controls the expansion device in a matter according to said sensed values and stored memory configuration [¶ 0054].One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide an expansion valve at a heat exchanger outlet) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner (i.e. provide further control over the degree of subcooling), and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. to provide a means to control of the opening degree at each refrigerant outlet of each heat exchanger to further control the degree of subcooling [¶ 0052-0055], thus allowing for specific modes of operations correlating to predetermined opening degrees [i.e. at least modes described in ¶ 0050, 0058, 0067, 0077, 0085, 0088, 0094], thereby providing a means for better control over the system.
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Styles to have a second expansion valve and a first joining part connecting the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve with the gas-liquid separator, in view of the teachings of Matsuda, where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to provide a means to control of the opening degree at each refrigerant outlet of each heat exchanger to further control the degree of subcooling, thus allowing for specific modes of operations correlating to predetermined opening degrees, thereby providing a means for better control over the system.
Furthermore, Kim teaches a heat pump system for a vehicle, wherein a gas injection device [30] comprises a plurality of expansion devices [34, 35] configured to connect the gas injection device to a plurality of heat exchangers [12a, 13] within the refrigeration circuit. Kim further teaches a control valve [33], disposed on a supply line [32] and is configured to inject gaseous refrigerant from a separator [31] towards a compressor [19] [¶ 0084-0089]. Here, while Kim does not explicitly describe the gas injection device [30] as having a specific housing, Kim obviously demonstrates that grouping the claimed components into a single cohesive module (i.e. plurality of expansion valves, control valve leading to compressor, and separator) is a known technique in the art, and the configuration is similarly capable of being controlled to operate in a plurality of modes, as well as increasing refrigerant flow to the compressor [¶ 0086-0089]. Also, because the combination of schematic representation in the prior art appears similar to the schematic representation of the instant invention, one or ordinary skill in the art would necessarily presume that the specific spatial configuration of components bears no significance to the operation of the device and is therefore considered an obvious design choice regarding the arrangement of parts [MPEP 2144.04]. Furthermore, a review of the specification does not appear to contain any criticality regarding the particular spatial construction, further leading one to believe it may merely be an obvious rearrangement of parts. Specifically, the limitations emphasizing disposition in a central, lower, or upper region are considered relative terms and may therefore be met by a simply reorientation of the prior art. Furthermore, regarding the housing, the existence of multi-way/multi-functional expansion valves is well-known in the art and may be demonstrated by Kim 780 [Fig. 1], as providing a main housing [100], with at least two inlet conduits [111, 112] communicating with two outlet conduits [113, 114]. Kim 780 further discloses that a plurality of bypass valves and expansion valves complicates the refrigerant circuit layout and increases manufacturing costs [Kim 780 ¶ 0013-0014]. Forming the components within a simplified multifunctional expansion valve simplifies the structure and reduces the manufacturing cost of the vehicle, thereby improving the system [Kim 780 ¶ 0129]. Therefore, when also considering the control valve (check valve) of Kim as also being part of the described gas injection part [30], one would naturally expect that an inclusion of the control valve into a housing body would simplify the arrangement and reduce manufacturing costs. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the housing configuration as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the housing configuration would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. forming the plurality of expansion components within a multifunctional expansion valve simplifies the structure and reduces the manufacturing cost of the vehicle, thereby improving the system [Kim 780 ¶ 0129].
Therefore, when considering both the teachings of Kim and Kim 780, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Styles to have a housing in which one check valve and first to fourth expansion valves are disposed from top to bottom, and wherein the gas-liquid separator is disposed to face the housing, wherein the second branch part is disposed in a lower region of the gas-liquid separator, and wherein the fifth refrigerant line is disposed in an upper region of the gas-liquid separator, in view of the teachings of Kim and Kim 780 where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. forming the plurality of expansion components within a multifunctional expansion valve simplifies the structure and reduces the manufacturing cost of the vehicle, thereby improving the system.
Regarding Claim 11, Styes, as modified, teaches the vapor injection module of claim 10 above and Styles teaches wherein a refrigerant introduced into the gas-liquid separator [152] through the first joining part is separated into a gas- phase refrigerant and a liquid-phase refrigerant inside the gas-liquid separator [¶ 0027-0029; refrigerant entering inlet 151 is separated into gaseous and liquid refrigerant],
the separated gas-phase refrigerant moves to the fifth refrigerant line [¶ 0029; gaseous refrigerant is injected through line 162 into compressor 102], and
the separated liquid-phase refrigerant moves to the second branch part [¶ 0028-0030; Annotated Fig. 1; liquid refrigerant is expelled from outlet 154 towards the second branch part, junction B].
Regarding Claim 12, Styles, as modified, teaches the vapor injection module of claim 11 above and Styles teaches wherein in a heating mode,
the first expansion valve is configured to be opened and the second expansion valve is configured to be closed so that the refrigerant passing through the first expansion valve is introduced into the gas-liquid separator through the first joining part [¶ 0025; control valve 120 may receive refrigerant from heat exchanger 111 while blocking refrigerant from heat exchanger 103 or control valve 120 may receive refrigerant from heat exchanger 103 while blocking refrigerant from heat exchanger 111; also consider combination with expansion valves and first joining part of Matsuda],
the gas-phase refrigerant separated in the gas-liquid separator moves to the fifth refrigerant line [162] and the liquid-phase refrigerant moves to the second branch part [¶ 0028-0030; gaseous refrigerant is injected through line 162 into compressor 102, and liquid refrigerant is expelled from outlet 154 towards the second branch part, junction B], and
the third expansion valve is closed and the fourth expansion valve is opened so that the liquid-phase refrigerant introduced into the second branch part passes through the fourth expansion valve [¶ 0034; flow may be entirely or partially directed to expansion device 107 or 108; also consider combination with expansion valves of Matsuda].
Regarding Claim 13, Styles, as modified, teaches the vapor injection module of claim 11, wherein in a cooling mode,
the first expansion valve is configured to be closed and the second expansion valve is configured to be opened so that the refrigerant passing through the second expansion valve is introduced into the gas-liquid separator through the first joining part [¶ 0025; control valve 120 may receive refrigerant from heat exchanger 111 while blocking refrigerant from heat exchanger 103 or control valve 120 may receive refrigerant from heat exchanger 103 while blocking refrigerant from heat exchanger 111; also consider combination with expansion valves and first joining part of Matsuda],
the gas-phase refrigerant separated in the gas-liquid separator moves to the fifth refrigerant line and the liquid-phase refrigerant moves to the second branch part [¶ 0028-0030; gaseous refrigerant is injected through line 162 into compressor 102, and liquid refrigerant is expelled from outlet 154 towards the second branch part, junction B], and
the third expansion valve is opened and the fourth expansion valve is closed so that the liquid-phase refrigerant introduced into the second branch part passes through the third expansion valve [¶ 0034; flow may be entirely or partially directed to expansion device 107 or 108; also consider combination with expansion valves of Matsuda].
Response to Arguments
On pages 7-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Styles does not teach selective flow control. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant is correct in clarifying that Styles does not explicitly teach a second expansion valve in line 124. However, please also see Fig. 2 of Styles showing an embodiment of the first valve being disposed on line 125, upstream of 120 [¶ 0036]. Styles also explicitly teaches that the system is capable of flow control via valve 120, to operate in a plurality of configurations, such as heating modes or cooling modes wherein refrigerant from a single branch may be configured to block or allow flow [¶ 0025]. While Styles does not specify said control through a plurality of expansion valves as claimed, it is important to recognize the vast similarities between the prior art and logic functions when combining with other prior art. Accordingly, while Styles lacks the second expansion valve, Matsuda is thereby incorporated to teach a similar system, wherein the plurality of refrigerant lines each contain their own respective expansion valve, in which control is exacted upon [Matsuda ¶ 0052]. Thus, 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). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
On pages 8-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the parallel configuration of Matsuda implies that the respective expansion valves are not capable of operating independently from one another. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Firstly, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assumption that refrigerant must always be flowing through each heat exchanger, and is therefore incapable of “closing” and “opening”. Specifically, Matsuda discloses that each indoor unit 52 may comprise its own respective set of thermistors 72, 74 as well as their own expansion valves 8 [¶ 0035, 0038], wherein each unit may be controlled via controller 64 such that the values of sensors 72 and 73 impact operation the respective expansion devices 8 [¶ 0054, 0092]. Thus, opening or closing would necessarily be achieved if the sensor readings motivate an adequate control signal to do such. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would likely presume that each respective expansion valve is controlled independently to their own respective sensors in their respective unit. Furthermore, 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). Specifically, Styles already teaches the known technique of preventing flow from one branch during specific operations, whereas Matsuda merely discloses alternative components (i.e. a plurality of expansion valves) to accomplish this known technique with known components. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
On pages 10-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art, as cited, does not teach the claims as amended. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Specifically, Kim 995 explicitly discloses a gas injection device 30 comprising a gas-liquid separator 30, line 32, check valve 33, and expansion valves 33 and 34, demonstrating that grouping components into a single cohesive module (i.e. plurality of expansion valves, control valve leading to compressor, and separator) is a known technique in the art, and the configuration is similarly capable of being controlled to operate in a plurality of modes, as well as increasing refrigerant flow to the compressor [Kim 995 ¶ 0085-0089]. As described in the rejection above, Kim 780 further teaches a housing comprising a plurality of inlets 111, 112 and outlets 113, 114. Kim 780 further discloses that a plurality of bypass valves and expansion valves complicates the refrigerant circuit layout and increases manufacturing costs [Kim 780 ¶ 0013-0014]. Therefore, forming the components within a simplified multifunctional expansion valve simplifies the structure and reduces the manufacturing cost of the vehicle, thereby improving the system [Kim 780 ¶ 0129]. Accordingly, when combining the gas injection device of Kim 995 and the configuration of expansion valves with branching and joining portions of Matsuda, with Styles, the schematic representation would appear to resemble the schematic representation disclosed in the drawings. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, merely providing the branching/joining points between the respective expansion valves 34, 35 and liquid separator 31 (as in Matsuda) would result in the claimed configuration.
Furthermore, the terms “from top to bottom” and regarding central/lower/upper regions are all considered to be relative terminology. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, any device having expansion valves may be considered to have expansion valves anywhere from the top to the bottom of the device. Similarly, any device may be spun/oriented in a specific matter to comply with the relative spatial limitations. Lastly, neither Styles, Matsuda, Kim 995 or Kim 780 explicitly emphasize spatial requirements of their schematic representation of the device. The lack of disclosed criticality would therefore lead one of ordinary skill to believe that the spatial location of components does not significantly impact the operation of the device such that it would not produce the same expected outcome, so long as the schematic relationship is maintained. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the relative spatial locations may be considered an obvious design choice regarding a change in orientation [MPEP 2144.04]. The Examiner would recommend further specifying claim 10 utilizing more specific, non-relative, claim language to more narrowly define the combination of structure of valves, junctions, and the separator, in order to more accurately depict the device in Figs. 5-7 of the instant Application, including any rebuttal arguments/evidence that would persuade one of ordinary skill that the combination is not an obvious rearrangement of components. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ko et al. (US 9,551,512 B2) discloses an air conditioning system [Fig. 1] comprising a phase separator disposed between heat exchangers, such that refrigerant in each line is modulated with respective valves while refrigerant may be injected to the compressor from the separator.
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 KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763