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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 virtual refrigerant metering device” in claims 1 and 14;
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.
After reviewing the specification, the virtual refrigerant metering device appears to be drawn to a virtual expansion valve or known equivalents (see paragraph [0039]).
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 1-21 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 1 recites the limitation "the desired flow rate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the desired flow rate" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claims 15-21 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 14.
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 1, 8-14, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 (WO2017/221396, previously cited) in view of Fuller (US 2015/0354875 – provided by Applicant in the IDS, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, FOR1 teaches a method of operating a refrigerant circuit system (see Abstract), comprising:
receiving a control input that represents a directed flow rate of a refrigerant through a virtual refrigerant metering device (see Description, “For example, when the opening degree of the virtual electronic expansion valve V is used as the comparison opening degree, if the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4n are controlled to the opening corrected by the equation (2)”);
for each refrigerant metering device of a plurality of parallel-connected, real, non-virtual, refrigerant metering devices of the refrigerant circuit system (4, Fig. 1, see Description, “In addition, the method for detecting the opening degrees of the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4n shown in the present embodiment can detect the opening degrees of the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4n in parallel”),
determining individual control input for the refrigerant metering device, based, at least in part, on the control input that represents the directed flow rate (see Description, “For example, when the opening degree of the virtual electronic expansion valve V is used as the comparison opening degree, if the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4n are controlled to the opening corrected by the equation (2)”)…. Opening of electronic expansion valve 4 = reference valve opening + (opening opening of electronic expansion valve 4−comparative opening), and
a refrigerant flow characteristic of the refrigerant metering device, to produce a plurality of individual flow rates through the plurality of refrigerant metering devices that provide an aggregate flow rate that is equivalent to the directed flow rate (see Description, “air conditioner 100 according to the present embodiment corrects the reference valve opening for each electronic expansion valve 4 and controls the opening of each electronic expansion valve 4 to the corrected opening. Therefore, the air conditioner 100 according to the present embodiment can correct individual differences for each electronic expansion valve 4”); and
sending a plurality of control inputs to the plurality of refrigerant metering devices based on the determining of the individual control inputs for the plurality of refrigerant metering devices (see Description, “As shown in FIG. 3, the opening degree of the electronic expansion valve 4a is smaller than that of the electronic expansion valves 4b and 4c. The opening degree of the electronic expansion valve 4b is larger than the electronic expansion valve 4a and smaller than the electronic expansion valve 4c. Further, the opening degree of the electronic expansion valve 4c is larger than that of the electronic expansion valves 4a and 4b. Therefore, if the opening degree of the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4c is controlled to the same opening degree α, as shown in FIG. 3, the flow rate actually flowing through the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4c, that is, the indoor heat exchangers 5a to 5c The flow rate of the flowing refrigerant is expressed by the following equation (1). Therefore, the same amount of refrigerant cannot be distributed to the indoor heat exchangers 5a to 5c”).
FOR1 does not specifically teach that the directed flow rate indicative of the desired flow rate through a common evaporator and that the plurality of parallel, real, non-virtual refrigerant metering devices fluidly coupled to the common evaporator.
Fuller teaches a refrigeration system (Fuller, Title) which features an expansion device (Fuller, 18, Fig. 2) and a micro-expansion valve (Fuller, 22, Fig. 2) that are connected in parallel (Fuller, paragraph [0023]), wherein the flow rate between the two expansion valves are combined (Fuller, [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with combining the flow rates between the first and second metering device, as taught by Fuller, in order to increase the rate of heat transfer in the system.
Regarding claim 8, FOR1 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the individual control input for the refrigerant metering device differs between ones of the plurality of refrigerant metering devices as a result of the characteristic curve of the refrigerant metering device differing between the ones of the plurality of refrigerant metering devices (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, FOR1 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each refrigerant metering device is of a respective refrigerant metering device type such that the characteristic curve of each one of the plurality of refrigerant metering devices is different from at least one other refrigerant metering device of the plurality of refrigerant metering devices (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, FOR1 teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the respective refrigerant metering device type is selected from a set consisting of a low-volume expansion valve, and a high-volume expansion valve; and wherein a maximum flow rate of the low-volume expansion valve is lower than a maximum flow rate of the high-volume expansion valve (see Description which on multiple occasions refers to 4a-4n being expansion valves, further, the Examiner notes a high/low volume is capable of being met as the opening degree of the valves is discussed to be variable in the Description).
Regarding claim 11, FOR1 teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the directed flow rate, based on the control input; and encoding the directed flow rate in the individual control input for the refrigerant metering device, for each of the plurality of refrigerant metering devices (see Description which notes the valves being controlled, which thereby implies an encoding of the control).
Regarding claim 12, FOR1 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the refrigerant is a metered refrigerant, the plurality of control inputs are of a single signal type, and the single signal type is one of an electrical signal or a mechanical signal (see Description, which notes electronic expansion valves which thereby requires electrical signals to control).
Regarding claim 13, FOR1 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of refrigerant metering devices is of a single metering device type, and the single metering device type comprises one of an electronic expansion valve, a thermal expansion valve, an externally-equalized expansion valve, or an internally-equalized expansion valve (see Description which on multiple occasions refers to 4a-4n being expansion valves).
Regarding claim 14, FOR1 teaches a controller (50, see Description) comprising:
one or more processors (see Description, “The control device 50 is configured by dedicated hardware or a CPU (Central Processing Unit, central processing unit, processing unit, arithmetic unit, microprocessor, microcomputer, processor) that executes a program stored in a memory. . The control apparatus 50 is accommodated in the outdoor unit 110, for example”),
wherein the controller is configured to receive a control input that represents a directed flow rate of a refrigerant through a virtual refrigerant metering device (see Description, “For example, when the opening degree of the virtual electronic expansion valve V is used as the comparison opening degree, if the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4n are controlled to the opening corrected by the equation (2)”);
one or more outputs, coupled to the one or more processors and configured to be communicatively coupled to a plurality of parallel-connected, real, non-virtual refrigerant metering devices (4, Fig. 1, see Description, “In addition, the method for detecting the opening degrees of the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4n shown in the present embodiment can detect the opening degrees of the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4n in parallel”); and
a computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors, comprising program instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors (see Description, “The control device 50 is configured by dedicated hardware or a CPU (Central Processing Unit, central processing unit, processing unit, arithmetic unit, microprocessor, microcomputer, processor) that executes a program stored in a memory. . The control apparatus 50 is accommodated in the outdoor unit 110, for example”), cause the controller to:
receive the control input that represents the directed flow rate of the refrigerant through the virtual refrigerant metering device (see Description, “For example, when the opening degree of the virtual electronic expansion valve V is used as the comparison opening degree, if the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4n are controlled to the opening corrected by the equation (2)”)….Opening of electronic expansion valve 4 = reference valve opening + (opening opening of electronic expansion valve 4−comparative opening);
for each refrigerant metering device of the plurality of refrigerant metering devices, determine individual control input for the refrigerant metering device, based, at least in part, on the control input that represents the directed flow rate (see Description, “air conditioner 100 according to the present embodiment corrects the reference valve opening for each electronic expansion valve 4 and controls the opening of each electronic expansion valve 4 to the corrected opening. Therefore, the air conditioner 100 according to the present embodiment can correct individual differences for each electronic expansion valve 4”), and
a refrigerant flow characteristic of the refrigerant metering device, to produce a plurality of individual flow rates through the plurality of refrigerant metering devices that provides an aggregate flow rate that is equivalent to the directed flow rate, and send, via the one or more outputs, one or more control inputs to the plurality of refrigerant metering devices based on the determined individual control inputs for the plurality of refrigerant metering devices (see Description, “As shown in FIG. 3, the opening degree of the electronic expansion valve 4a is smaller than that of the electronic expansion valves 4b and 4c. The opening degree of the electronic expansion valve 4b is larger than the electronic expansion valve 4a and smaller than the electronic expansion valve 4c. Further, the opening degree of the electronic expansion valve 4c is larger than that of the electronic expansion valves 4a and 4b. Therefore, if the opening degree of the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4c is controlled to the same opening degree α, as shown in FIG. 3, the flow rate actually flowing through the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4c, that is, the indoor heat exchangers 5a to 5c The flow rate of the flowing refrigerant is expressed by the following equation (1). Therefore, the same amount of refrigerant cannot be distributed to the indoor heat exchangers 5a to 5c”).
FOR1 does not specifically teach that the directed flow rate indicative of the desired flow rate through a common evaporator and that the plurality of parallel, real, non-virtual refrigerant metering devices fluidly coupled to the common evaporator.
Fuller teaches a refrigeration system (Fuller, Title) which features an expansion device (Fuller, 18, Fig. 2) and a micro-expansion valve (Fuller, 22, Fig. 2) that are connected in parallel (Fuller, paragraph [0023]), wherein the flow rate between the two expansion valves are combined (Fuller, [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with combining the flow rates between the first and second metering device, as taught by Fuller, in order to increase the rate of heat transfer in the system.
Regarding claim 19, FOR1 teaches the controller of claim 14, wherein the individual control input for the refrigerant metering device differs between ones of the plurality of refrigerant metering devices as a result of the characteristic curve of the refrigerant metering device differing between the ones of the plurality of refrigerant metering devices, and the characteristic of the refrigerant metering device comprises a maximum flow rate of the refrigerant metering device (see FI. 3).
Regarding claim 20, FOR1 teaches the controller of claim 14, wherein each refrigerant metering device is of a respective refrigerant metering device type such that the characteristic curve of each one of the plurality of refrigerant metering devices is different from at least one other refrigerant metering device of the plurality of refrigerant metering devices, the respective refrigerant metering device type is selected from a set consisting of a low-volume expansion valve, and a high-volume expansion valve; and wherein a maximum flow rate of the low-volume expansion valve is lower than a maximum flow rate of the high-volume expansion valve (see Description which on multiple occasions refers to 4a-4n being expansion valves, further, the Examiner notes a high/low volume is capable of being met as the opening degree of the valves is discussed to be variable in the Description).
Regarding claim 21, FOR1 teaches the controller of claim 14, wherein the controller is in a system that comprises another controller, the controller is communicatively coupled to receive the control input from the another controller, and the another controller is configured to determine the directed flow rate, encode the directed flow rate in the control input, and send the control input to the controller (54, Fog. 1, see Description, “The control unit 54 controls each of the electronic expansion valves 4a to 4n to an opening obtained by correcting the reference valve opening determined by the reference opening determining unit 51 with a value stored in the storage unit 53. The control unit 54 also controls driving and stopping of the compressor 1 and switching of the flow path of the four-way valve 2”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 15-18 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 FOR1 (WO2017/221396) in view of Jekimow (US 9,618,247 – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
The prior art of record when considered as a whole, either alone or in combination, does not anticipate or render obvious:
Regarding claims 2 and 15,
wherein the sending comprises: sending a first control input of the plurality of control inputs to a first refrigerant metering device of the plurality of refrigerant metering devices; and sending a second control input of the plurality of control inputs to a second refrigerant metering device of the plurality of refrigerant metering devices, wherein the refrigerant flow characteristic of the refrigerant metering device comprises a characteristic curve that governs a refrigerant flow rate of the refrigerant through the refrigerant metering device, the refrigerant flow characteristic of the first refrigerant metering device comprises a first characteristic curve that governs a first refrigerant flow rate of the refrigerant through the first refrigerant metering device, the refrigerant flow characteristic of the second metering device comprises a second characteristic curve that governs a second refrigerant flow rate of the refrigerant through the second refrigerant metering device, and the determining the individual control input for the first refrigerant metering device and the individual control input for the second refrigerant metering device is performed such that the aggregate flow rate comprises a combination of the first refrigerant flow rate and the second refrigerant flow rate.
Regarding claim 4,
the first characteristic curve is a first flow coefficient versus refrigerant metering device setting curve, the second characteristic curve is a second flow coefficient versus refrigerant metering device setting curve, the individual control input for the first refrigerant metering device is determined, at least in part, by determining a first refrigerant metering device setting, based, at least in part, on a first weighting function, the first characteristic curve, and the target characteristic curve of the virtual refrigerant metering device, and the individual control input for the second refrigerant metering device is determined, at least in part, by determining a second refrigerant metering device setting, based, at least in part, on a second weighting function, the second characteristic curve, and the target characteristic curve of the virtual refrigerant metering device.
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 claim 2, 4, and 15-16, with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable. The Examiner notes that claim 16 recites the same allowable subject matter of claim 4.
Claim 3 is objected based on its dependency to claim 2.
Claims 5-7 are objected to based on their dependency to claim 4.
Claims 17-18 are objected to based on their dependency to claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, unless otherwise noted.
Applicant’s arguments begin by addressing the 35 USC 112 rejections made in the previous office action. Applicant has removed the indefinite term and therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Remainder of Applicant’s arguments are directed to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections made in the previous office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 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’s arguments with respect to the Fuller rejection of claims 2 and 15, specifically with regard to the aggregate flow limitations, have been found persuasive and are addressed in the office action above.
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 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
