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 § 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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit…comprises shutting off a compressor of the air conditioner” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear due to claim 1 recites that shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit comprises fully closing only one electronic expansion valve while continuing to provide flow to every other indoor unit which is unclear as the limitation of claim 2 directly contradicts claim 1 as shutting off the compressor shuts down the flow to all indoor units. Clarification is requested.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 10,712,035 – provided by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Yamada (US 2021/0131706, hereinafter referred to as Yamada ‘706).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a method of operating an air conditioner system (see Title), the air conditioner system comprising an outdoor unit (2, Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 5-20), a plurality of indoor units (3a-3d, Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 5-20), and a sealed cooling system coupled between the outdoor unit and the plurality of indoor units (4a-4d, Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 5-20) to circulate refrigerant through an indoor heat exchanger of each of the indoor unit (52a-52d, Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 60-65) and an outdoor heat exchanger of the outdoor unit (23a, 23b, Fig. 1, col. 7, lines 45-50),
the method comprising:
detecting a refrigerant leak at the indoor unit; and
shutting off refrigerant flow to the indoor unit in response to the detected refrigerant leak (see ST1-ST4, Fig. 2, Abstract).
Yamada does not specifically teach detecting a refrigerant leak at a first indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units, and shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit while continuing to provide refrigerant flow to every other indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units, wherein shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit comprises fully closing only one electronic expansion valve.
Yamada ‘706 teaches an air conditioner (Yamada ‘706, Title) with a plurality of indoor units (Yamada ‘706, 57a, 57b, Fig. 1) wherein when a leak is detected the expansion valve of the indoor unit with a leak is closed and operation to the indoor unit without a leak is continued (Yamada ‘706, ST5, ST6, Fig. 8, see paragraph [0232]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Yamada with shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit while continuing to provide refrigerant flow to every other indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units, wherein shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit comprises fully closing only one electronic expansion valve, as taught by Yamada ‘306, in order to maintain operation to normally functional units thereby isolating the leak while continuing to service other areas, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Yamada as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit in response to the detected refrigerant leak comprises shutting off a compressor of the air conditioner system (Yamada, ST3, Fig. 2 see motivation to combine in claim 1 as Yamada ‘706 teaches shutting down only the leaking indoor unit and continuing operation).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein shutting off refrigerant flow to the indoor unit in response to the detected refrigerant leak comprises fully closing only the one electronic expansion valve in an indoor portion of the sealed cooling system upstream of the indoor unit (Yamada, ST4, Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 65-67 which notes the gas relay shutoff valve is constituted by an expansion valve see motivation to combine in claim 1 as Yamada ‘706 teaches shutting down only the leaking indoor unit and continuing operation).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein shutting off refrigerant flow to the indoor unit in response to the detected refrigerant leak comprises fully closing only the one electronic expansion valve in the sealed cooling system (see Yamada, ST4, Fig. 4, col. 3, lines 17-20 which notes the liquid relay shutoff valve is constituted by an expansion valve see motivation to combine in claim 1 as Yamada ‘706 teaches shutting down only the leaking indoor unit and continuing operation) between a liquid service valve (Yamada, 27, Fig. 1) and the outdoor heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 10, Yamada teaches an air conditioner system (see Title), comprising: an outdoor unit (2, Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 5-20); a plurality of indoor units (3a-3d, Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 5-20); a sealed cooling system coupled between the outdoor unit and the plurality of indoor units (4a-4d, Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 5-20) to circulate refrigerant through an indoor heat exchanger (52a-52d, Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 60-65) of the indoor unit and an outdoor heat exchanger of the outdoor unit (23a, 23b, Fig. 1, col. 7, lines 45-50); and a controller, the controller (see Abstract at least) configured for: detecting a refrigerant leak at the indoor unit (ST1, Fig. 2); and shutting off refrigerant flow to the indoor unit in response to the detected refrigerant leak (ST3, ST4 Fig. 2).
Yamada does not specifically teach detecting a refrigerant leak at a first indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units, and shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit while continuing to provide refrigerant flow to every other indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units, wherein shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit comprises fully closing only one electronic expansion valve.
Yamada ‘706 teaches an air conditioner (Yamada ‘706, Title) with a plurality of indoor units (Yamada ‘706, 57a, 57b, Fig. 1) wherein when a leak is detected the expansion valve of the indoor unit with a leak is closed and operation to the indoor unit without a leak is continued (Yamada ‘706, ST5, ST6, Fig. 8, see paragraph [0232]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Yamada with shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit while continuing to provide refrigerant flow to every other indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units, wherein shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit comprises fully closing only one electronic expansion valve, as taught by Yamada ‘306, in order to maintain operation to normally functional units thereby isolating the leak while continuing to service other areas, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 11, Yamada as modified teaches the air conditioner system of claim 10, wherein the controller is configured for shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit by shutting off a compressor of the air conditioner system (Yamada, ST3, Fig. 2 see motivation to combine in claim 1 as Yamada ‘706 teaches shutting down only the leaking indoor unit and continuing operation).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada as modified teaches the air conditioner system of claim 10, wherein the controller is configured for shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit by fully closing only the electronic expansion valve in an indoor portion of the sealed cooling system upstream of the indoor unit (see Yamada, ST4, Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 65-67 which notes the gas relay shutoff valve is constituted by an expansion valve see motivation to combine in claim 1 as Yamada ‘706 teaches shutting down only the leaking indoor unit and continuing operation).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada as modified teaches the air conditioner system of claim 10, wherein the controller is configured for shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit by fully closing only the electronic expansion valve (see Yamada, ST4, Fig. 4, col. 3, lines 17-20 which notes the liquid relay shutoff valve is constituted by an expansion valve).
Regarding claim 16, Yamada as modified teaches the air conditioner system of claim 10, wherein the indoor unit is a first indoor unit of a plurality of indoor units (see Yamada, Fig. 1), wherein the controller is configured for shutting off refrigerant flow to the first indoor unit in response to the detected refrigerant leak by shutting off refrigerant flow to each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units (see Yamada, col. 2, lines 56-61).
Claims 3, 6, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view Yamada ‘706, further in view of Koo (US 2003/0213254, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada as modified teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit in response to the detected refrigerant leak comprises switching a reversing valve of the air conditioner system to cooling mode.
Koo teaches an air conditioner (Koo, Title) wherein when a leak is detected, the system switches to cooling mode in order to allow leaked refrigerant to be restored into the outdoor unit (Koo, claim 4, paragraph [0037], see S408, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Yamada as modified with switching to cooling mode if a leak is detected, as taught by Koo, in order to allow leaked refrigerant to be restored in the outdoor unit (Koo, claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein shutting off refrigerant flow to the only the first indoor unit in response to the detected refrigerant leak comprises shutting off a compressor of the air conditioner system (Yamada, ST3, Fig. 2, see motivation to combine in claim 1 as Yamada ‘706 teaches shutting down only the leaking indoor unit and continuing operation),
fully closing only the one electronic expansion valve.
Yamada does not teach switching a reversing valve of the air conditioner system to cooling mode.
Koo teaches an air conditioner (Koo, Title) wherein when a leak is detected, the system switches to cooling mode in order to allow leaked refrigerant to be restored into the outdoor unit (Koo, claim 4, paragraph [0037], see S408, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Yamada as modified with switching to cooling mode if a leak is detected, as taught by Koo, in order to allow leaked refrigerant to be restored in the outdoor unit (Koo, claim 4).
Through the combination, Yamada as modified teaches wherein shutting off the compressor, switching the reversing valve to cooling mode, and fully closing the at least one electronic expansion valve are all performed simultaneously, as all of the controls are taught by the combination.
Regarding claim 12, Yamada as modified teaches the air conditioner system of claim 10, but does not teach the controller is configured for shutting off refrigerant flow to the indoor unit by switching a reversing valve of the air conditioner system to cooling mode.
Koo teaches an air conditioner (Koo, Title) wherein when a leak is detected, the system switches to cooling mode in order to allow leaked refrigerant to be restored into the outdoor unit (Koo, claim 4, paragraph [0037], see S408, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Yamada as modified with switching to cooling mode if a leak is detected, as taught by Koo, in order to allow leaked refrigerant to be restored in the outdoor unit (Koo, claim 4).
Regarding claim 15, Yamada teaches the air conditioner system of claim 10, shutting off a compressor of the air conditioner system (ST3, Fig. 2), and fully closing at least one of an electronic expansion valve (see ST4, Fig. 4, col. 3, lines 17-20 which notes the liquid relay shutoff valve is constituted by an expansion valve).
Yamada does not teach switching a reversing valve of the air conditioner system to cooling mode. Koo teaches an air conditioner (Koo, Title) wherein when a leak is detected, the system switches to cooling mode in order to allow leaked refrigerant to be restored into the outdoor unit (Koo, claim 4, paragraph [0037], see S408, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Yamada as modified with switching to cooling mode if a leak is detected, as taught by Koo, in order to allow leaked refrigerant to be restored in the outdoor unit (Koo, claim 4).
Through the combination, Yamada as modified teaches wherein the controller is configured for shutting off refrigerant flow to the indoor unit by simultaneously as all of the controls are taught by the combination.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Matsuda (US 11,609,031 – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada as modified teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach shutting off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit in response to the detected refrigerant leak comprises preventing, by a check valve coupled to an accumulator of the air conditioner system, refrigerant from flowing away from the accumulator.
Matsuda teaches a refrigeration cycle apparatus which features an accumulator (Matsuda, 108, Fig. 13, see claim 5) that is coupled to a check valve (Matsuda, 80, Fig. 13, see claim 5) which prevents refrigerant from flowing into the first port of the accumulator during the refrigerant recovery operation, i.e. when there is a leak (Matsuda, Abstract, col. 16, lines 6-10, claim 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Yamada with a check valve and accumulator, as taught by Matsuda, in order to prevent harmful backflow of refrigerant into the accumulator during a leak. Further, the Examiner notes that the modification of adding an accumulator to the system of Yamada as modified is further obvious in order to prevent the flow of liquid into the compressor, thereby preventing damage to the compressor and increasing the longevity of the system.
Regarding claim 18, Yamada as modified teaches the air conditioner system of claim 10, but does not teach an accumulator and a check valve coupled to the accumulator, the check valve configured to shut off refrigerant flow to only the first indoor unit by preventing refrigerant from flowing away from the accumulator.
Matsuda teaches a refrigeration cycle apparatus which features an accumulator (Matsuda, 108, Fig. 13, see claim 5) that is coupled to a check valve (Matsuda, 80, Fig. 13, see claim 5) which prevents refrigerant from flowing into the first port of the accumulator during the refrigerant recovery operation, i.e. when there is a leak (Matsuda, Abstract, col. 16, lines 6-10, claim 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Yamada with a check valve and accumulator, as taught by Matsuda, in order to prevent harmful backflow of refrigerant into the accumulator during a leak. Further, the Examiner notes that the modification of adding an accumulator to the system of Yamada is further obvious in order to prevent the flow of liquid into the compressor, thereby preventing damage to the compressor and increasing the longevity of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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