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 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 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lifson (US 20100242508 A1).
Regarding claim 8:
Lifson discloses a method of operating a refrigerant loop (Fig. 1-2), the method comprising:
defining an initial opening of an expansion valve #26, wherein the initial opening is substantially open or substantially closed (inherently present. See [0009] & [0012]);
detecting a characteristic of a discharge side of a compressor (via #34; [0010]);
determining whether the characteristic of the discharge side of the compressor is outside of a predetermined range of a threshold value; and changing a size of the opening of the expansion valve in response to the characteristic of the discharge side of the compressor being outside of the predetermined range of the threshold value (See [0010-0014]: the degree of opening of the EV #26 is modified because the characteristic of the discharge side of the compressor is outside of a threshold value as measures by sensor #36).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifson (US 20100242508 A1) in view of Andreuccetti (US 20220134843 A1).
Regarding claim 9:
Lifson discloses all the limitations, except for an operation mode comprising a cold startup mode that is triggered when a detected ambient temperature is below 0°C.
Nonetheless, cold start-ups in which the ambient temperature is below a given temperature threshold (e.g., below freezing) are known in the art as taught by Andreuccetti ([0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Lifson with an operation mode comprising a cold startup mode that is triggered when a detected ambient temperature is below 0°C; in a similar manner as taught by Andreuccetti.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have compensated for low-temperature challenges such as increased oil viscosity; thereby, protecting components of the refrigerant loop.
Regarding claim 10:
Lifson as modified discloses all the limitations; except for decreasing the size of the opening of the expansion valve if a discharge superheat is below the threshold value.
Nonetheless, Lifson discloses modifying the size of the opening of the expansion valve as a function of a discharge superheat ([0013]).
This is strong evidence that modifying the size of the opening of the expansion valve as a function of a discharge superheat being below the threshold value would produce predictable results (e.g. optimized capacity and efficiency). See para [0011] of Lifson.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the method of Lifson as modified with decreasing the size of the opening of the expansion valve if a discharge superheat is below the threshold value.
One on ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that doing so would have yielded the predictable result of optimizing the capacity and efficiency of the method.
Regarding claim 11:
Lifson as modified discloses all the limitations; except for wherein the threshold value is in a range of 0 °C to 50 °C.
The difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is with regards to the optimal operating temperature range. However, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. The range of 0 °C to 50 °C is very broad to entail criticality.
Since the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Lifson as modified with the threshold value being in a range of 0 °C to 50 °C.
One on ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that doing so would have yielded the predictable result of optimizing the capacity and efficiency of the method for a specific operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 15; Lifson discloses a method of operating a refrigerant loop, the method comprising determining a characteristic of a discharge side of a compressor; controlling an expansion valve using a first method, wherein the first method comprises control logic that is based on the characteristic of a discharge side of the compressor; determining a characteristic of a suction side of the compressor (see rejection of claim 8 above; and sensor #36 of Lifson). Lifson does not disclose wherein in response to the characteristic of the suction side of the compressor meeting predefined criteria, controlling the expansion valve using a second method, wherein the second method comprises control logic that is based on the characteristic of the suction side of the compressor. There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the Lifson either alone or in combination with the prior art of record so as to provide the aforementioned control scheme.
With respect to claims 15 and 19; the combination of elements as set forth in these claims are not disclosed or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lifson in combination with Andreuccetti so as to provide limitations of the aforementioned claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/28/2026 have been fully considered.
The examiner maintains the position that the limitation “defining an initial opening of an expansion valve, wherein the initial opening is substantially open or substantially closed” is inherently disclosed by Lifson for the following reasons:
I. the broadest reasonable interpretation of “substantially open or substantially closed” cover all possible states in which the expansion valve is at any time in the refrigerant loop.
II. at the time of manufacturing the expansion valve, or at the time the expansion valve is installed in the loop for operation thereof, an initial opening being substantially open or substantially closed is defined in order the invention of Lifson to function.
III. the invention of Lifson clearly states in para [0012] that “the present invention utilizes its control of the expansion device 26 to achieve increased dehumidification”. As would be recognized by an ordinary skill artisan, controlling the expansion valve entails modifying a state/position of said valve. Because a state/position of said valve is known (i.e. state from which the valve is controlled); Lifson thus discloses wherein the method comprises a defined initial opening of the expansion valve.
Andreuccetti in para [0038] discloses “pre-heating allows the hydraulic fluid to be at the proper temperature for use immediately upon turning on or otherwise starting up the vehicle 10, which can be particularly advantageous for cold start-ups in which the ambient temperature around the vehicle 10 is below a given temperature threshold (e.g., below freezing)”. In this section of Andreuccetti, “cold start-ups” represent a plurality of operations defined; one of which represents the claimed “defining an operation mode of a plurality of operation modes”. Said operation is triggered when a detected ambient temperature is below freezing (see bolded portion of para [0038] of Andreuccetti above). Freezing temperature is 0° C. Thus, the examiner maintains the position that the limitation “defining an operation mode of a plurality of operation modes, wherein the operation mode comprises a cold startup mode that is triggered when a detected ambient temperature is below 0° C” is clearly disclosed by Andreuccetti.
Argument with respect to claim 13 is persuasive. Claim 13 has been objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hirosaki (US 20220146165 A1), Rite (US 20150068231 A1), Huerta-Ochoa (US 20120260679 A1), Ohta (US 7467525 B1), Aikawa (US 20060288727 A1), and Yamaguchi (US 6182456 B1) teaches pertinent method and system for controlling expansion valves.
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 LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights