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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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 decompression device” in claim 1, line 5, interpreted according to the teachings of ¶ 19 (as numbered in the specification as originally filed) as a valve having an adjustable opening degree and equivalents thereof.
“a control device” in claim 1, line 12, interpreted according to the teachings of ¶ 18 as comprising a processor and a memory and equivalents thereof.
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.
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 4, 11, and 12 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.
Claim 4 teaches that “the second threshold value” (of claim 1, line 18) is “a value designed assuming that an overcurrent flows in a motor of the compressor when the temperature of the refrigeration oil in the compressor is a temperature corresponding to the pour point and the concentration of the refrigeration oil in the compressor is the second threshold value.” This limitation does not clearly identify any value for the second threshold value (either as an absolute value, or in relation to other values or properties) and teaches only an assumption made in determining the value without clearly establishing how that assumption affects the actual value or how the scope of the claimed apparatus would be altered by this assumption as the claim does not require, for example, an actual overcurrent of the compressor motor or the temperature actually corresponding to the pour point. For these reasons, the scope of claim 4 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In claim 11, it is taught that the temperature sensor and concentration sensor of claim 1 “are provided in a vicinity of a shaft of the compressor”. The term “in a vicinity” in this claim a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Neither the claim nor the specification provides any basis for determining how near to the shaft the sensors must be to be “in a vicinity” of it, so that there is no basis for determining if another similar system would or would not fall within the scope of this claim.
Similarly, claim 12 teaches that the sensors “are provided at an end portion of a shaft of the compressor” but the claim and specification do not provide any basis for determining at what axial distance along the shaft the sensors would be considered to be “at an end portion” (e.g. within 10% of the shaft’s total length of its end as compared to 30%) and whether and with what proximity sensors located past the end of the shaft would be “at an end portion”.
For these reasons, the locations of the sensors which would or would not fall within the scope of claims 11 and 12 cannot be positively ascertained and these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2019/0346182 A1 to Ishiyama et al. in view of Japanese Publication No. H04-273948 A to Yamashita et al. A copy and an English-language translation of Yamashita were provided by applicant with the Information Disclosure Statement of 30 January 2024 and all citations to this reference are directed to the paragraphs as numbered in this translation.
PNG
media_image2.png
326
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ishiyama teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 1 and 3, shown above, and fig. 2, shown below, an air conditioner comprising:
a compressor (1);
a first heat exchanger (2);
a second heat exchanger (4);
a decompression device (expansion valve 3);
a circulation path (shown but not numbered in in fig. 1) through which a refrigerant circulates through the compressor (1), the first heat exchanger (2), the decompression device (3), and the second heat exchanger (4) in this order (as shown in fig. 1);
a temperature sensor (100) to detect a temperature of refrigeration oil in the compressor (1) (taught as a “pour point determination sensor in ¶ 33 with “A temperature sensor capable of detecting a compressor shell temperature” taught as an embodiment of this sensor);
a heater (50) to heat the refrigeration oil in the compressor (as taught in ¶ 33); and
a control device (200),
wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
302
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in a case where the concentration of the refrigeration oil… exceeds a second threshold value greater than [a] first threshold value (as shown in fig. 2, the temperature T3 corresponds to a high oil concentration curve greater than medium and low curves for which the same viscosity of oil would correspond to lower oil pour temperatures) and the temperature of the refrigeration oil detected by the temperature sensor (100) is less than a specified temperature (that is, when the sensed temperature of the oil is not greater than T3, the pour point temperature, as represented in step S2 of the flow chart of fig. 3), the control device operates the heater (5) such that the refrigerant in the liquid state in the compressor is vaporized and the temperature of the refrigeration oil in the compressor is increased (as taught in ¶¶ 36-38, the temperature is brought to the pour point T3).
Ishiyama does not teach the system having a concentration sensor for sensing the concentration of the oil and refrigerant mixture in the compressor, the control device operating the heater when the concentration is low in addition to Ishiyama’s control to operate the heater when the temperature is low regardless even at higher concentrations, or the operation of the heater vaporizing liquid refrigerant in the compressor. Yamashita teaches in figs. 2 and 4, shown below, and in ¶¶ 20, 23, and 27-28 a refrigeration cycle device having a compressor (11) in which are disposed a heater (15) and a dilution sensor (16) for detecting a level of dilution in re refrigerant/oil mixture in the compressor (11) and a controller (21) which controls the heater (15) to be activated when the dilution of oil is high (that is, when its concentration is low) to reduce the mass of liquid refrigerant in the compressor and reduce the dilution of the oil. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ishiyama with the concentration-based control of the heater and its use in vaporizing liquid refrigerant taught by Yamashita in order to reduce the dilution of oil and reduce locking of the compressor during startup after long periods of stoppage as taught in ¶ 4 of Yamashita.
PNG
media_image4.png
286
336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
276
222
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ishiyama does not teach the control device turning off the heater when the concentration of oil is caused to exceed the threshold value. Yamashita teaches in ¶ 30 that the microcomputer (21) of his invention ends the energization of the heater (15) when the dilution measured by the dilution sensor (16) is less than the threshold (k) used for energizing the heater (15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ishiyama with the concentration-based control of the heater and its use in vaporizing liquid refrigerant taught by Yamashita in order to control the heater to operate only when there is benefit and cause for its operation, thus preventing over-use of the heater and unnecessary expenditure of energy and reduction in the system’s efficiency.
Ishiyama teaches limitations from claim 3, the air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the specified temperature is a temperature corresponding to a pour point of the refrigeration oil (as taught in ¶ 36).
Ishiyama teaches limitations from claim 4 in fig. 2, shown above, the air conditioner according to the air conditioner according to wherein the second threshold value (of the medium curve of fig. 2) is a value. Regarding the teaching that this value is “designed assuming” various properties, it is found that it is possible for the value of the medium concentration of Ishiyama to be selected while making such assumptions as they do not limit the actual value of this threshold value as discussed in the above rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Ishiyama teaches limitations from claim 5 in figs. 2 and 3, shown, the air conditioner according to claim 1, further comprising: a memory to store the first threshold value (a memory of the controller 200, not explicitly taught but required for the storing of instructions described in ¶ 37 and shown in fig. 3), wherein the first threshold value (of the medium concentration curve of fig. 2) is a value corresponding to a first temperature of the refrigeration oil (temperature T2 shown on this curve), and the memory further stores a third threshold value (of the low concentration curve of fig. 2) corresponding to a second temperature (T1) of the refrigeration oil.
Ishiyama teaches limitations from claim 6, the air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the control device (200) activates the compressor (1, by driving the motor as taught in ¶¶ 40-41) after adjusting the concentration or the temperature of the refrigeration oil (by adjusting the viscosity of the oil by using the heater 50 as taught in ¶ 41) in the compressor by operating the heater (50).
Ishiyama teaches limitations from claim 7 in fig. 7, the air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the control device operates the heater (50) regardless of the concentration of the refrigeration oil (as Ishiyama does not teach the control being negated or prevented by such concentration) in the compressor (1) in a case where the refrigerant and the refrigeration oil in the compressor are separated and the temperature of the refrigeration oil detected by the temperature sensor is less than the specified temperature (as described in ¶¶ 40-42, the temperature being less than the pour point may be indicative of such separation of the oil and refrigerant and may demand operation of the heater to remedy this separation by adjustment of the viscosity of the oil.)
Ishiyama teaches limitations from claim 8 in fig. 3, shown above, the air conditioner according to claim 7, wherein the control device stops the operation of the heater (step S4 of the flowchart of fig. 3) in a case where the temperature of the refrigeration oil in the compressor exceeds the specified temperature (as determined in step S2).
Regarding claim 9, Ishiyama teaches in ¶ 40-42 that the operation of the heater may be performed to reduce or correct separation of oil from refrigerant. Yamashita teaches in ¶¶ 20, 23, and 27-28 that the heater of his invention may be operated responsive to a high dilution (that is, a low concentration) of machine oil in an oil/refrigerant mixture in the compressor. Neither teaches that the heater is operated in a case where both of these conditions are met even when a sensed temperature of the oil is above a specified threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be an obvious mechanical expedient to control the system of Ishiyama as modified by Yamashita to perform such an operation when the detected temperature is high in order to remedy the problems of oil dilution and separation as determined by the concentration sensor of Yamashita even when a temperature detected by the sensor of Ishiyama does not indicate heating to be necessary in order to ensure that such problems are addressed when they occur or are likely to occur in order to ensure effective and reliable operation of the compressor and prevent unnecessary damage which may result from operation with insufficient lubrication.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Ishiyama does not teach the temperature sensor of his invention or an oil concentration sensor being disposed in a vicinity of a shaft of the compressor as taught in claim 11, or at an end portion of this shaft as taught in claim 12. Yamashita teaches in fig. 4, shown above, and in ¶ 27, the compressor (11) of his invention including a shaft (compression element part 19) with the sensor (16) of his invention being positioned in the same space as the shaft within the compressor and thus in its vicinity as taught in claim 11, and being near the lower end of the shaft as taught in claim 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ishiyama with the internal sensor placement taught by Yamashita, and to apply this positioning to both the temperature and concentration sensors in order to ensure that external conditions (such as direct sunlight or ambient temperature) do not unduly influence the detection of the compressor oil temperature and to place the sensors in near proximity to the store of oil and the moving parts of the compressor which both require lubrication and generate heat in order to ensure accurate measurement of the operating conditions of the system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama and Yamashita as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 3,073,515 to Neubauer et al.
Regarding claim 10, Ishiyama teaches a refrigeration cycle system in which a compressor is provided with a temperature sensor and a heater, the temperature sensor and heater communicating with a controller to heat oil stored in the compressor when the sensed temperature is below a pour point of the oil in order to ensure proper flow of lubricant. Yamashita teaches a similar arrangement of a compressor, controller, and heater, but teaches the heater being activated responsive to a dilution sensor indicating a high dilution of oil with refrigerant to reduce the liquid refrigerant present in the compressor. Each reference further teaches the step of turning off the heater after the desired adjustment has been accomplished (increasing temperature or reducing dilution as discussed in the above rejections of claim 8 and 2, respectively). Neither Ishiyama nor Yamashita teaches the operation of stopping the heater when liquid refrigerant in the compressor has been vaporized. Neubauer teaches in col. 1, lines 14-31 that it is desirable in the operation of a compressor having a crankcase for storing oil that liquid refrigerant trapped in this crankcase should be evaporated by the application of heat so that it may reenter the system without potentially damaging the compressor through suction of liquid. In light of the teachings of Neubauer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the system of Ishiyama to allow such complete evaporation of trapped liquid refrigerant before stopping the heater in order to accomplish the benefits taught by Neubauer, including the reduction of trapped refrigerant while maintaining effective and safe operation of the compressor itself, reducing the risk of both lost efficiency resulting from insufficient refrigerant charge and damage to the compressor caused by compressing liquid refrigerant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763