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 Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 1, the word “an” before “use heat exchanger” should be replaced with “a”.
In line 15 of claim 1, the words “a pressure of” should be inserted between “has” and “1 MPa”.
In line 16 of claim 1, the words “a pressure of” should be inserted between “has” and “1.5 MPa”.
In line 4 of claim 6, the word “an” before “use heat exchanger” should be replaced with “a”.
In line 19 of claim 6, the words “a pressure of” should be inserted between “has” and “1 MPa”.
In line 20 of claim 6, the words “a pressure of” should be inserted between “has” and “1.5 MPa”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Claim 5
Claim 19
The refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 1, comprising
a second outdoor heat exchanger in which the second refrigerant evaporates during the heating operation.
The refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim [[2]]1, comprising
a second outdoor heat exchanger in which the second refrigerant evaporates during the heating operation.
Claims 5 and 19 are reproduced here to demonstrate this duplication. As originally presented, claim 19 depended upon claim 2 (which in turn depended upon claim 1). With the amendment of 31 October 2025, claim 2 has been cancelled and claim 19 has been amended to depend upon claim 1, causing it to overlap identically in language and scope with claim 5.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 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.
In lines 7-8 of claim 1, the recitations of “the first refrigerant” and “the second refrigerant” lack antecedent basis. As these elements have not been previously recited in the claim but are recited using the definite article “the” rather than “a”, it is not clear whether the claim omits (possibly in error) some previous recitation which might include greater specificity regarding these refrigerants, their relationship, or the components with which they flow or interact. For this reason, the scope of the claims with regard to the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant is unclear and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 6 includes equivalent recitations in line 8 thereof and is rejected for the same reasons set forth with regard to claim 1.
Claim 6 further recites in line 15 “the first heat exchanger”. This recitation lacks antecedent basis as the claim includes no previous recitation of this element. Although the claim recites in line 2 “a first outdoor heat exchanger”, the lack of the descriptor “outdoor” makes it unclear whether “the first heat exchanger” is intended to refer to this element, as it appears as likely that the word “first” could be included in error (for example in a recitation intended to refer to the “use heat exchanger” or “cascade heat exchanger”) as it is that the word “outdoor” was omitted. For this reason, the structure required by the recitation of the “first heat exchanger” cannot be positively ascertained and claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 6 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and “the first heat exchanger” has been interpreted as referring to the first outdoor heat exchanger, based particularly on the teachings of pg. 12, lines 7-10 which describe the first outdoor heat exchanger functioning as a condenser of the first refrigerant (that is, radiating heat from this refrigerant).
Claims 3, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are each rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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, 3, 5, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Publication No. 2000-320914 A to Yabu et al. in view of Japanese Publication No. 2014/020673A to Saito et al.
An English translation of Yabu has been provided with the Nonfinal Rejection of 12 June 2025 and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Japanese-language original document.
Further, a copy and translation of which were provided by applicant with the Information Disclosure Statement of 31 October 2025. With this action, examiner provides a new translation of this document having clearer and more consistent language (e.g. the use of the term “low source” to identify the refrigeration cycle which includes the compressor 10 and elements of this cycle, in comparison to the various use of “low level” (¶ 3), “low source” (¶ 10), “low origin” (¶ 12), “low end” (¶15), and low-stage (¶ 25) to identify these elements in the translation provided by applicant.) Any references or citations of the teachings of Saito, including specific page or paragraph numbers, are directed to the English translation provided with this Office Action rather than to the Japanese-language original document or the previous English translation.
PNG
media_image1.png
247
228
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yabu teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig. 1, shown above, a refrigeration cycle apparatus, comprising
an use heat exchanger (11),
a cascade heat exchanger (4) including a first cascade flow path (13, receiving refrigerant circulated by the compressor 10) and a second cascade flow path (21, receiving refrigerant circulated by the compressor 20) that is independent of the first cascade flow path (as shown in fig. 1, the two paths 13 and 21 communicate only thermally), and
[wherein the refrigeration cycle apparatus is configured to perform]
a heating operation by performing a two-stage refrigeration cycle by circulating the first refrigerant in the first cascade flow path (13) and the second refrigerant in the second cascade flow path (21), and performing heat exchange between the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant in the cascade heat exchanger (4, as taught in the Solution portion of the abstract of Yabu, the indoor heat exchanger 11 of the high-temperature cycle 2 functions as a condenser to heat indoor air and as taught in ¶ 29 the heating operation may be performed using a dual refrigeration cycle with both cycles 2 and 3 to in the event of a low outside air temperature); and
a cooling operation by performing a single refrigeration cycle by radiating heat from the first refrigerant (in the path 13 of the heat exchanger 4)… and evaporating the first refrigerant in the use heat exchanger (11, as taught in ¶ 88, in an embodiment in which both cycles (2) and (3) may have their flow directions switched to provide heating or cooling, a cooling operation may be performed as a single cycle or unit operation, particularly if the load is small.)
Yabu does not teach system including an outdoor heat exchanger for radiating heat from the first refrigerant in the cooling operation, a controller for switching the operations of the refrigeration cycle apparatus, or the refrigerants in the first and second refrigerants being chosen such that the first refrigerant has 1 MPa or less at 30ºC and the second refrigerant has 1.5 MPa or more at 30ºC.
PNG
media_image2.png
310
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Saito teaches in fig. 1, shown above, a refrigeration air conditioning system having an outdoor unit (1) and an indoor unit (2) and having a high-source refrigeration cycle (formed having a compressor 5, radiator 6, expansion valve 8, and a first path 9a of a cascade heat exchanger 9) and a low-source refrigeration cycle (having a compressor 10, switching valve 11, radiator 12, a second path 9b of the cascade heat exchanger 9, expansion valve 14, and indoor heat exchanger 15) so that the indoor heat exchanger (15) functions as the use heat exchanger of claim 1 and the radiator (12) functions as the first outdoor heat exchanger of claim 1 when an operation is performed using only the low-source refrigeration cycle (as taught in ¶ 29-30 of Saito as a “unit operation”). Saito further teaches a control device (20) having a microcomputer and operating to control and switch operations of the refrigeration cycles. Further, Saito teaches in ¶ 22 that the refrigerant circulating in the low-source refrigeration cycle (equivalent to the claimed “second refrigerant”) is carbon dioxide (taught by applicant in ¶ 26 of the instant application (as numbered in US Publication No. 2024/0027105 A1) as an exemplary refrigerant having a pressure of 1.5 MPa or more at 30º C) and in ¶ 25 that the refrigerant circulating in the low-source refrigeration cycle (equivalent to the claimed “first refrigerant”) is R290 (commonly known as propane). The “Temperature-Pressure Chart for Propane (R290)” document (included with this Office Action and retrieved from https://berg-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Berg-Propane-R290-Pressure-Temperature-Chart.pdf) shows R290/Propane to have a pressure of “141.8 psig” (equal to 0.977 MPa) at a temperature of 30º C, showing that Saito teaches this limitation of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Yabu with the outdoor heat exchanger, controller, and refrigerants taught by Saito because these refrigerants are well known as effective, reliable, and useful refrigerants in common use in refrigeration systems, with R290 known as an energy-efficient, high performance refrigerant with a low global warming potential (GWP) and carbon dioxide is likewise known as a safe and efficient refrigerant with low GWP and further because the use of an outdoor heat exchanger (rather than only providing the cascade heat exchanger to receive heat removed from the conditioned space in a cooling operation increases the capacity of refrigeration circuit by more efficiently rejecting heat from the refrigerant.
Yabu teaches limitations from claim 3 in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
during the heating operation, the first refrigerant evaporates when passing through the first cascade flow path (as taught in the Solution portion of the abstract of Yabu, the indoor heat exchanger first flow path 13 of the heat exchanger 4 evaporates the refrigerant flowing therethrough), and the second refrigerant radiates heat when passing through the second cascade flow path (as taught in ¶ 49, the second flow path 21 of the heat exchanger 4 operates as a condenser, releasing heat to the flow path 13), and the first refrigerant radiates heat in the use heat exchanger (11, serving as a condenser as taught in ¶ 49).
Yabu as modified by Saito (as discussed in the above rejection of claim 1) teaches limitations from claim 5 in fig. 1 of Yabu, shown above, the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 1, comprising
a second outdoor heat exchanger (23 of Yabu, in contrast to the additional heat exchanger 12 added by the teachings of Saito as discussed in the above rejection of claim 1) in which the second refrigerant evaporators during the heating operation (as taught in ¶ 49).
Yabu as modified by Saito as discussed above teaches limitations from claim 16, the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second refrigerant includes carbon dioxide (as taught in in ¶ 22 of Saito and discussed in detail in the above rejection of claim 1).
Regarding the limitations of claim 19, refer to the above rejection of claim 5.
Regarding the limitations of claim 20, refer to the above rejection of claim 3 upon which the claim depends and claim 5 which includes identical limitations.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabu and Saito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2017/0191705 A1 to Sethi et al.
Regarding claim 15, Yabu teaches a cascade air conditioning system in which a first circuit and second circuit may be used in a unit operation or a two-stage operation to meet variable demand for heating and cooling of a conditioned space. Saito teaches a similar arrangement and particularly teaches the use of R290 as a refrigerant in a first circuit of the system and of carbon dioxide as a refrigerant in a second circuit of the system. Neither Yabu nor Saito teaches the first refrigerant of the system to include at least one of R1234yf or R1234ze.
PNG
media_image3.png
358
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sethi teaches in fig. 1, shown above, a refrigerant circuit similar in construction to that of Yabu, in which a first circuit and second circuit are used to connect an indoor heat exchanger (24) to an outdoor heat exchanger (12) via a cascade heat exchanger (13) and in which the two circuits circulate different refrigerants and particularly teaches in ¶¶ 28-30 that the refrigerant of the outdoor circuit (including the condenser 12) “may comprise, for example, one or more of blends comprising one or more of HFC-32 (preferably in amounts of from about 0% to about 22% by weight), HFO-1234ze (preferably in amounts of from about 0% to about 78% by weight), HFO-1234yf (preferably in amounts of from about 0% to about 78% by weight) and propane.” It will be recognized that HFO-1234ze and HFO-1234yf are alternate notations referring to the same chemical compounds as R-1234ze and R-1234yf, respectively, identifying them as hydrofluoroolefins. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Yabu with the refrigerant including at least one of R1234yf and R1234ze taught by Sethi because as taught by Sethi in ¶ 29 describes these as “refrigerants that have many desirable properties, such as capacity, efficiency, low GWP and low ODP” while having their potential disadvantages mitigated by use in an outdoor cycle rather than in close proximity to humans or other animals. Further, MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness identifies “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” as an exemplary motivation to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. Here, Sethi identifies R290, R1234yf, and R1234ze as equivalents which may be reasonably substituted in the context in which they are applied by Yabu as modified by Saito, as well as identifying the advantages of these refrigerants as “predictable results” which may be obtained by such substitution.
Claims 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabu, Saito, and US Publication No. 2016/0131368 A1 to Tomoigawa.
Yabu teaches limitations from claim 6 in fig. 1, shown above, a refrigeration cycle apparatus, comprising
a second outdoor heat exchanger (23),
an use heat exchanger (11) including a first use flow path (receiving refrigerant circulated by the compressor 10),
a cascade heat exchanger (4) including a first cascade flow path (13, receiving refrigerant circulated by the compressor 10 in circuit 2) and a second cascade flow path (21, receiving refrigerant circulated by the compressor 20 in circuit 3) that is independent of the first cascade flow path (as shown in fig. 1, the two paths 13 and 21 communicate only thermally), and configured to heat exchange between the first refrigerant (in circuit 2) and the second refrigerant (in circuit 3), and
[wherein the refrigeration cycle apparatus is configured to perform]
a heating operation by performing a two-stage refrigeration cycle by evaporating the second refrigerant (in cycle 3) in the second outdoor heat exchanger (23), radiating heat from the second refrigerant in the second cascade flow path (21), evaporating the first refrigerant (in cycle 2) in the first cascade flow path (13, and radiating heat from the first refrigerant in the first use flow path (in the heat exchanger 11, taught in the Solution portion of the abstract of Yabu, the indoor heat exchanger 11 of the high-temperature cycle 2 functions as a condenser to heat indoor air and as taught in ¶ 29 the heating operation may be performed using a dual refrigeration cycle with both cycles 2 and 3 to in the event of a low outside air temperature); and
a cooling operation by performing a two-stage refrigeration cycle by evaporating the first refrigerant (in cycle 2) in the first cascade flow path (13), radiating heat from the second refrigerant (in cycle 3) in the second cascade flow path (21).
Yabu does not teach system including a first outdoor heat exchanger for radiating heat from the first refrigerant in the cooling operation, a controller for switching the operations of the refrigeration cycle apparatus, or the refrigerants in the first and second refrigerants being chosen such that the first refrigerant has 1 MPa or less at 30ºC and the second refrigerant has 1.5 MPa or more at 30ºC. Saito teaches in fig. 1, shown above, a refrigeration air conditioning system having an outdoor unit (1) and an indoor unit (2) and having a high-source refrigeration cycle (formed having a compressor 5, radiator 6, expansion valve 8, and a first path 9a of a cascade heat exchanger 9) and a low-source refrigeration cycle (having a compressor 10, switching valve 11, radiator 12, a second path 9b of the cascade heat exchanger 9, expansion valve 14, and indoor heat exchanger 15) so that the indoor heat exchanger (15) functions as the use heat exchanger of claim 1 and the radiator (12) functions as the first outdoor heat exchanger of claim 1 when an operation is performed using only the low-source refrigeration cycle (as taught in ¶ 29-30 of Saito as a “unit operation”). Saito further teaches a control device (20) having a microcomputer and operating to control and switch operations of the refrigeration cycles. Further, Saito teaches in ¶ 22 that the refrigerant circulating in the low-source refrigeration cycle (equivalent to the claimed “second refrigerant”) is carbon dioxide (taught by applicant in ¶ 26 of the instant application (as numbered in US Publication No. 2024/0027105 A1) as an exemplary refrigerant having a pressure of 1.5 MPa or more at 30º C) and in ¶ 25 that the refrigerant circulating in the low-source refrigeration cycle (equivalent to the claimed “first refrigerant”) is R290 (commonly known as propane). The “Temperature-Pressure Chart for Propane (R290)” document (included with this Office Action and retrieved from https://berg-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Berg-Propane-R290-Pressure-Temperature-Chart.pdf) shows R290/Propane to have a pressure of “141.8 psig” (equal to 0.977 MPa) at a temperature of 30º C, showing that Saito teaches this limitation of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Yabu with the outdoor heat exchanger, controller, and refrigerants taught by Saito because these refrigerants are well known as effective, reliable, and useful refrigerants in common use in refrigeration systems, with R290 known as an energy-efficient, high performance refrigerant with a low global warming potential (GWP) and carbon dioxide is likewise known as a safe and efficient refrigerant with low GWP and further because the use of an outdoor heat exchanger (rather than only providing the cascade heat exchanger to receive heat removed from the conditioned space in a cooling operation increases the capacity of refrigeration circuit by more efficiently rejecting heat from the refrigerant.
Further, Yabu does not teach the use heat exchanger of the system including a second use flow path for evaporating the second refrigerant in a cooling operation. Tomoigawa teaches in figs. 2 and 3, shown below, an indoor unit (12) of an air conditioning system in which an indoor heat exchanger is divided into two sub-heat exchangers (5A and 5B) disposed in two sides (27A and 27B) of a single air outlet (27). Tomoigawa further teaches in ¶ 30 that these two heat exchangers (5A and 5B) are respectively connected to separate and independent refrigerant circuits (circuit 35A, including an outdoor unit 32A and expansion valve 31A, connecting to the heat exchanger 5A and circuit 35B, including an outdoor unit 32B and expansion valve 31B, connecting to the heat exchanger 5B). One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be obvious, in modifying Yabu according to the teachings of Tomoigawa, to provide the indoor-unit side circuit (2) of Yabu as one of the two circuits (35A or 35B) of Tomoigawa so that the other circuit (3) of Yabu may still be used to increase the heating capacity of the system in response to increased load (as taught in the Abstract of Yabu) while also allowing the supplemental cooling of the dual heat exchanger of Tomoigawa when operating in a cooling mode, resulting in a system in which one circuit (equivalent to circuit 2 of Yabu) is a use-side circuit in a heating mode and a heat-source side circuit in a cooling mode, circulating the same refrigerant in both cases and using either the secondary circuit of Yabu or that of Tomoigawa depending on which is advantageous for performance and efficiency in the instant operation.
PNG
media_image4.png
289
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
349
596
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yabu as modified by Tomoigawa as set forth above teaches limitations from claim 11 in figs. 2 and 3 of Tomoigawa, shown above, the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 8, wherein during the cooling operation, the first refrigerant evaporates when passing through the first use flow path (of the heat exchanger section 5A of Tomoigawa), and the second refrigerant evaporates when passing through the second use flow path (of the heat exchanger section 5B of Tomoigawa, the sections 5A and 5B functioning together as the indoor heat exchanger 11 of Yabu which will act as an evaporator when the flow in the circuit 2 is reversed for a cooling operation as taught in ¶ 88 of Yabu. Further, Tomoigawa teaches in ¶ 31 of his specification that both heat exchangers 5A and 5B of the split heat exchanger of his invention may heat or cool air passing through the indoor unit.)
Yabu as modified by Tomoigawa as set forth above teaches limitations from claim 12 in fig. 1 of Yabu and figs. 2 and 3 of Tomoigawa, shown above, the refrigeration cycle apparatus according to claim 8, wherein during the heating operation, the first refrigerant radiates heat when passing through the first use flow path (of the heat exchanger section 5A of Tomoigawa), and the second refrigerant radiates heat when passing through the second use flow path (of the heat exchanger section 5B of Tomoigawa, the sections 5A and 5B functioning together as the indoor heat exchanger 11 of Yabu which acts as a condenser to release heat to indoor air as taught in the Abstract of Yabu. Further, Tomoigawa teaches in ¶ 31 of his specification that both heat exchangers 5A and 5B of the split heat exchanger of his invention may heat or cool air passing through the indoor unit.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on pg. 8 of the reply that the amendments to the title and abstract filed with the response of 9 September 2025 overcome the objections to these elements set forth in the Nonfinal Rejection of 12 June 2025.
In response, examiner agrees and these objections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pp. 8-9 of the reply that the interpretation of “a second outdoor heat exchanger” in claims 5, 14, 19, and 20 is clarified by the inclusion of “a first outdoor heat exchanger” in claim 1 upon which claims 5, 19, and 20 depend (claim 14 being cancelled) so that the difference between these heat exchangers is positively claimed.
In response, examiner agrees and has applied this interpretation in the examination of the claims as set forth above.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 of the reply that claim 6 has been amended to overcome the rejections of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In response, examiner agrees and this rejection has been withdrawn. Attention is however directed to the new rejections of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on recitations which lack antecedent basis which have been introduced in the amendment.
Applicant argues on pp. 10-11 of the response that claim 1 as amended overcome the rejection of the claim as being obvious over Yabu and Sugimoto set forth in the Nonfinal Rejection based on the new limitations (such as the first outdoor heat exchanger) added to the claim by amendment.
In response, examiner agrees but directs attention to the new grounds of rejection in which claim 1 is found to be obvious over Yabu as modified by Saito.
Applicant argues on pp. 11-12 that the combination of Yamu and Tomoigawa applied in rejecting claim 6 in the Nonfinal rejection is improper as:
“Tomoigawa merely discloses a ‘dual’ refrigerant circuits in which two motors are independently controllable so that the total accumulated operating hours of the two motors could be controlled”
“since Tomoigawa's dual circuits are configured to be independently controllable for specific purposes, there are technical difficulties in modifying Yabu having an evaporator (13), which exchanges heat between the 1st refrigerant circuit and the 2nd refrigerant circuit.”
“there is no motivation (or other rationale) to modify Yabu with independently controllable dual refrigerant circuits of Tomoigawa since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that Yabu would not work as intended if combined.”
In response, examiner disagrees. Although applicant has identified a rationale for Tomoigawa’s use of dual evaporators different from that articulated by the examiner, applicant has not identified any reason that the combination of teachings of Yabu and Tomoigawa would be improper beyond alleging (unspecified) “technical difficulties” and that the system “would not work as intended if combined” without explanation or rationale for these assertions. Further, although applicant asserts that “there is no motivation (or other rationale)”, applicant does not address the motivation set forth for the combination in both the Nonfinal Rejection and in this Office action, or the explanation of how one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of the references, namely:
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be obvious, in modifying Yabu according to the teachings of Tomoigawa, to provide the indoor-unit side circuit (2) of Yabu as one of the two circuits (35A or 35B) of Tomoigawa so that the other circuit (3) of Yabu may still be used to increase the heating capacity of the system in response to increased load (as taught in the Abstract of Yabu) while also allowing the supplemental cooling of the dual heat exchanger of Tomoigawa when operating in a cooling mode, resulting in a system in which one circuit (equivalent to circuit 2 of Yabu) is a use-side circuit in a heating mode and a heat-source side circuit in a cooling mode, circulating the same refrigerant in both cases and using either the secondary circuit of Yabu or that of Tomoigawa depending on which is advantageous for performance and efficiency in the instant operation.
For this reason, applicant’s assertions that motiviation for the combination does not exist or that the combination would be non-functional are found, in the absence of further explanation or evidence, to amount only to mere allegations of patentability which are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 12-13 that the rejections of claims 1, 6, 7, 15, and 16 as presenting double patenting with regard to Copending Application No. 18/375,000 as set forth in the Nonfinal Rejection should be held in abeyance until any of the pending claims are deemed to be allowable.
In response, examiner agrees. While it appears that the amendments to the independent claims remove the claims from double patenting with the copending application, further analysis will be necessary when and if patentable subject matter is identified based on any future amendments or cancellations of claims from the instant and copending applications.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights