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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (Figs. 1-3B) in the reply filed on 8/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of each of the inventions is sufficiently related through a thorough search of the subject matter as it would encompass the remaining inventions. This is not found persuasive because the different species impart structural differences that are not obvious variants of each other, specifically with regard to using a heat recovery unit and the varying structural components that this modification requires and potential controls associated therewith.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naito (US 2018/0252443 – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Naito teaches an air conditioner (see Title comprising:
a controller (300, paragraph [0070]);
a compressor that compresses a refrigerant (11, Fig. 1, paragraph [0072]);
an outdoor heat exchanger through which the refrigerant discharged from the compressor flows (14, Fig. 1, paragraph [0073]);
a plurality of expansion valves that expands the refrigerant passed through the outdoor heat exchanger (31a-d, Fig. 1, paragraph [0027]);
a plurality of indoor heat exchangers through which the refrigerant passed through the plurality of expansion valves flows (41a-d, Fig. 1, paragraph [0028]);
a plurality of connection pipes that connects the plurality of indoor heat exchangers and the compressor (21, 24, 27, see Fig. 1, see paragraph [0034] at least); and
a plurality of variable valves installed in the plurality of connection pipes (32a-d, Fig. 1, paragraph [0027]),
wherein an opening degree of each of the plurality of variable valves is adjustable via the controller (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Naito teaches the air conditioner of claim 1, wherein the variable valves are electronic expansion valves (EEVs) (see paragraph [0027] which notes 32 is an expansion valve).
Regarding claim 3, Naito teaches the air conditioner of claim 1, wherein a pressure of refrigerant at an inlet side of each indoor heat exchanger of the plurality of indoor heat exchangers increases as the opening degree of the respective variable valve is decrease by the controller (see paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Naito teaches the air conditioner of claim 1, wherein the opening degree of the variable valve is increased by the controller as a user's set temperature for the respective indoor heat exchanger is decreased (see Fig. 1, see paragraphs [0053]-[0055] which all note that when the system is set to cool, the opening of 32d is opened).
Regarding claim 10, Naito teaches the air conditioner of claim 1, wherein one of the plurality of variable valves is connected to a specific indoor heat exchanger of the plurality of indoor heat exchangers in which a lowest target temperature is set among target temperatures of refrigerant at an inlet side of the plurality of indoor heat exchangers, and is fully opened by the controller (see Fig. 1, which shows the cooling operation mode opening 32 to its full degree, cooling operation implicitly has a low target setting, specifically with regard to Fig. 1 which shows heating modes in the different heat exchanger, with one other non-operating).
Regarding claim 14, Naito teaches the air conditioner of claim 1, wherein some of the plurality of indoor heat exchangers is maintained as an evaporator through which the refrigerant passed through the expansion valve flows, and the rest of the plurality of indoor heat exchangers is switchable into a condenser through which the refrigerant discharged from the compressor flows (see paragraph [0028] which notes “The cooling-heating switching unit 30 changes the direction of refrigerant flowing through the indoor unit 40 by opening or closing the high-and-low-pressure gas pipe expansion valves 31 and the low-pressure gas pipe expansion valve 32, to switch the operation of an evaporator and the operation of a condenser of an indoor-unit heat exchanger 41” specifically noting that the control is in regard to a single heat exchanger being switched to an evaporator which implies individual control, further evidenced by Fig. 1 which shows the plurality of indoor heat exchangers operating at different modes).
Regarding claim 15, Naito teaches the air conditioner of claim 1, wherein the plurality of indoor heat exchangers is switchable from an evaporator through which the refrigerant passed through the expansion valve flows into a condenser through which the refrigerant discharged from the compressor flows (see paragraph [0028]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito in view of FOR1 (KR20210131237A – provided by Applicant in IDS).
Regarding claim 5, Naito teaches the air conditioner of claim 1, btu does not teach that the opening degree of the variable valve is increased by the controller as a difference between a current temperature of a room in which the respective indoor heat exchanger is located and a user's set temperature for the respective indoor heat exchanger increases.
FOR1 teaches an air conditioner (FOR1, Title) with a plurality of indoor units and indoor heat exchangers (FOR1, 10, 11, Fig. 8) with inlet and outlet temperature sensors for the indoor heat exchangers (FOR1, 14, 15, Fig. 8, see Description), wherein a temperature difference between the room temperature and set temperature controls the opening degree of the expansion valve such that the opening degree of the expansion valve is controlled to be increased or decreased based on the difference therebetween (FOR1, see 303-307, Fig. 6, see Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Naito with varying the opening degree to be increased/decreased based on the difference between the current temperature in the room and the set temperature, as taught by FOR1, in order to provide accurate control over the user’s desired temperature over time.
Regarding claim 12, Naito teaches the air conditioner of claim 1, but does not that teach an opening degree of each expansion valve is adjustable by the controller to adjust a superheat degree, which is a difference between a temperature of refrigerant at an outlet side of the respective indoor heat exchanger and a temperature of refrigerant at an inlet side.
FOR1 teaches an air conditioner (FOR1, Title) with a plurality of indoor units and indoor heat exchangers (FOR1, 10, 11, Fig. 8) with inlet and outlet temperature sensors for the indoor heat exchangers (FOR1, 14, 15, Fig. 8, see Description), wherein the opening degree of the indoor expansion valve (FOR1, 16, Fig. 8) is controlled based on a degree of superheat that is determined based on the readings from the inlet/outlet sensors of the indoor heat exchangers (FOR1, see Description, “Although the control shown in FIG. 6 is control to adjust and maintain the opening degree of the indoor expansion valve 16, the degree of superheat of the refrigerant on the outlet side of the indoor heat exchanger is obtained by using the detected values of the pipe temperature sensors 14 and 15. It becomes possible to control with the target value. Then, control using the detection values of the piping temperature sensors 14 and 15 is demonstrated”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Naito with adjusting the opening degree of the expansion valve based on the superheat degree, as taught by FOR1, in order to increase the efficiency of the air conditioner.
Regarding claim 13, Naito teaches the air conditioner of claim 12, comprising a temperature sensor that measures the temperature of refrigerant at the outlet side of the respective indoor heat exchanger and the temperature of refrigerant at the inlet side (FOR1, 14, 15, Fig. 8, see Description).
Regarding claim 16, Naito teaches an air conditioner (see Title) comprising:
a controller (300, paragraph [0070]);
at least one compressor that compresses a refrigerant (11, Fig. 1, paragraph [0072]);
at least one outdoor heat exchanger through which the refrigerant discharged from the at least one compressor flows (14, Fig. 1, paragraph [0073]);
a plurality of expansion valves that expands the refrigerant passed through the at least one outdoor heat exchanger (31a-d, Fig. 1, paragraph [0027]);
a plurality of indoor heat exchangers through which the refrigerant passed through the plurality of expansion valves flows (41a-d, Fig. 1, paragraph [0028]);
a plurality of connection pipes that connects the plurality of indoor heat exchangers and the at least one compressor (21, 24, 27, see Fig. 1, see paragraph [0034] at least); and
a plurality of variable valves installed in the plurality of connection pipes (32a-d, Fig. 1, paragraph [0027]),
wherein an opening degree of each of the plurality of variable valves is adjustable via the controller (see Abstract).
Naito does not teach:
wherein the opening degree of the variable valve is increased by the controller as a difference between a current temperature of a room in which the respective indoor heat exchanger is located and a user's set temperature for the respective indoor heat exchanger increases.
FOR1 teaches an air conditioner (FOR1, Title) with a plurality of indoor units and indoor heat exchangers (FOR1, 10, 11, Fig. 8) with inlet and outlet temperature sensors for the indoor heat exchangers (FOR1, 14, 15, Fig. 8, see Description), wherein a temperature difference between the room temperature and set temperature controls the opening degree of the expansion valve such that the opening degree of the expansion valve is controlled to be increased or decreased based on the difference therebetween (FOR1, see 303-307, Fig. 6, see Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Naito with varying the opening degree to be increased/decreased based on the difference between the current temperature in the room and the set temperature, as taught by FOR1, in order to provide accurate control over the user’s desired temperature over time.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito in view of Abe (US 2015/0135753).
Regarding claim 11, Naito teaches the air conditioner of claim 10, but does not teach that the controller is configured to adjust an operating frequency of the compressor to match a temperature of refrigerant at an inlet side of the specific indoor heat exchanger to the lowest target temperature.
Abe teaches an air conditioning apparatus (Abe, Title) wherein the controller matches the compressor operating frequency with the indoor inlet temperature (Abe, paragraph [0008], Fig. 3A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Naito with adjusting an operating frequency of the compressor to match a temperature of refrigerant at an inlet side of the specific indoor heat exchanger, as taught by Abe, in order to prevent intermittent operation of the compressor, thereby preventing a decrease in efficiency (Abe, paragraph [0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 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:
The closest prior art of record is Naito (US 2018/0252443 provided in the IDS) in view of FOR2 (EP1586836A – provided in the IDS) and FOR3 (JP4179783B2).
The prior art of record when considered as a whole, either alone or in combination, does not anticipate or render obvious:
wherein the opening degree of the variable valve is adjusted by the controller based on an error, which is a difference between a current temperature of refrigerant at an inlet side of the respective indoor heat exchanger and a target temperature, and an error slope, which is a temperature change of the refrigerant at the inlet side of the respective indoor heat exchanger for a predetermined period of time.
Naito as modified teaches an analogous air conditioner to the claimed invention but lacks specifics regarding the adjustment of the opening degree of the variable valve as claimed. FOR2 teaches controlling an expansion valve based on a calculated error load, wherein the error is calculated based on the difference between the compressor inlet temperature and the indoor pipe temperature, at predetermined time intervals (FOR2, see Description, see claim 2). FOR2 further calculates a slope based on the calculated error. FOR3 teaches determining an error based on the difference between the suction temperature and the indoor set temperature (FOR3, Description). However, the combination does not teach that the determined error is a function of “a difference between a current temperature of refrigerant at an inlet side of the respective indoor heat exchanger and a target temperature, and an error slope, which is a temperature change of the refrigerant at the inlet side of the respective indoor heat exchanger for a predetermined period of time.”
In the Examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to further modify the prior art structures to arrive at the claimed invention, absent impermissible hindsight. Therefore, rendering dependent claim 6, with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Claims 7-9 are objected based on their dependency to claim 6.
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record is Naito (US 2018/0252443) in view of FOR2 (EP1586836A) and FOR3 (JP4179783B2).
The prior art of record when considered as a whole, either alone or in combination, does not anticipate or render obvious:
wherein the opening degree of the variable valve is adjusted by the controller based on an error, which is a difference between a current temperature of refrigerant at an inlet side of the respective indoor heat exchanger and a target temperature, and
an error slope, which is a temperature change of the refrigerant at the inlet side of the respective indoor heat exchanger for a predetermined period of time.
Naito as modified teaches an analogous air conditioner to the claimed invention but lacks specifics regarding the adjustment of the opening degree of the variable valve as claimed. FOR2 teaches controlling an expansion valve based on a calculated error load, wherein the error is calculated based on the difference between the compressor inlet temperature and the indoor pipe temperature, at predetermined time intervals (FOR2, see Description, see claim 2). FOR2 further calculates a slope based on the calculated error. FOR3 teaches determining an error based on the difference between the suction temperature and the indoor set temperature (FOR3, Description). However, the combination does not teach that the determined error is a function of “a difference between a current temperature of refrigerant at an inlet side of the respective indoor heat exchanger and a target temperature, and an error slope, which is a temperature change of the refrigerant at the inlet side of the respective indoor heat exchanger for a predetermined period of time.”
In the Examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to further modify the prior art structures to arrive at the claimed invention, absent impermissible hindsight. Therefore, rendering independent claim 17, with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763