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 Status
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 9-15 are withdrawn as non-elected.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/11/2025.
As explained in the restriction dated 06/26/2025, the field of search would be burdensome upon the office due to different classification and status in the art as well as the different recited structures. The restriction is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the controller must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 4, 6, and 8 are a method step/process that bypasses the outdoor heat exchanger which per the application disclosure functions as a condenser. By entirely bypassing the condenser the refrigerant is to flow into two indoor heat exchangers that respectively function as evaporators (see instant application in several areas referring to condensation/ heat dissipation via 113/213 and evaporation/absorption via 121/131 and 221/231). The method steps cannot perform refrigeration heating or cooling by running the compressed refrigerant directly into an evaporator. Therefore, claims 4, 6, and 8 are not enabled. By virtue of dependency claims 5-7 are also not enabled.
Claims 1-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The structure that comprises the “first throttling element” or “second throttling element” is not disclosed or depicted in the originally filed disclosure. The specification is silent on possible structure and/or structural equivalents that could possibly comprise the first or second throttling elements.
Claims 4, 6, and 8 recite a method step/process that bypasses the outdoor heat exchanger that functions as a condenser. By entirely bypassing the condenser the refrigerant is to flow into two indoor heat exchangers that function as evaporators (see instant application in several areas referring to condensation/ heat dissipation via heat exchangers 113/213 and evaporation/absorption via heat exchangers 121/131 and 221/231). The method steps cannot perform refrigeration heating or cooling by running the compressed refrigerant directly into an evaporator. Therefore, the method steps of claim 4 are not fully disclosed by the originally filed disclosure. The written description fails to disclose and/or explain how the operation of the air conditioning system can perform the steps of claims 4, 6, and 8 bypassing the condenser in each step. By virtue of dependency claims 5-7 are also not fully disclosed by the written description.
Claims 4-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
Claims 4, 6, and 8 recite a method step/process that bypasses the outdoor heat exchanger that functions as a condenser. By entirely bypassing the condenser the refrigerant is to flow into two indoor heat exchangers that function as evaporators (see instant application in several areas referring to condensation/ heat dissipation via heat exchangers 113/213 and evaporation/absorption via heat exchangers 121/131 and 221/231). The method steps cannot perform refrigeration heating or cooling by running the compressed refrigerant directly into an evaporator. Therefore, the method steps of claims 4, 6, and 8 are not fully disclosed by the claims. The claims fails to recite how the steps can be successfully performed by the air-conditioning system and how the system could work absent the condenser. Therefore, claims 4, 6, and 8 are impossible/inoperative and lack clear possible utility. By virtue of dependency claims 5-7 are also impossible/inoperative and lack clear possible utility.
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 1-8 and 16 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.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 15, the phrases "first type indoor unit" and “second type indoor unit” render the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 1-8 and 16 are rejected to because of the following: the claims recite “a first throttling element” and “a second throttling element.” The structure of either is not disclosed, described or recited in the claims. Therefore the claims are unclear, undefined, and indefinite.
Claims 4, 6, and 8 recite a method step/process that bypasses the outdoor heat exchanger that functions as a condenser. By entirely bypassing the condenser the refrigerant is to flow into two indoor heat exchangers that function as evaporators (see instant application in several areas referring to condensation/ heat dissipation via heat exchangers 113/213 and evaporation/absorption via heat exchangers 121/131 and 221/231). The method steps cannot perform refrigeration heating or cooling by running the compressed refrigerant directly into an evaporator. Therefore, the method steps of claims 4, 6, and 8 are not fully disclosed by the claims. The claims fails to recite how the steps can be successfully performed by the air-conditioning system and how the system could work absent the condenser. Therefore, claims 4, 6, and 8 are unclear and indefinite. By virtue of dependency claims 5-7 are also unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
Claims 4, 6, and 8 recite a method step/process that bypasses the outdoor heat exchanger that functions as a condenser. By entirely bypassing the condenser the refrigerant is to flow into two indoor heat exchangers that function as evaporators (see instant application in several areas referring to condensation/ heat dissipation via heat exchangers 113/213 and evaporation/absorption via heat exchangers 121/131 and 221/231). The method steps cannot perform refrigeration heating or cooling by running the compressed refrigerant directly into an evaporator. Therefore, the method steps of claims 4, 6, and 8 are not fully disclosed by the claims. The claims fails to recite how the steps can be successfully performed by the air-conditioning system and how the system could work absent the condenser. Therefore, claims 4, 6, and 8 are impossible/inoperable and lack clear possible utility. By virtue of dependency claims 5-7 are also impossible/inoperable and lack clear possible utility.
Claims 4-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schroeder et al. (DE 102011118162 A1, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Schroeder.”
Regarding Claim 1: Schroeder teaches a multi-temperature air conditioning system (title), comprising: an outdoor unit (condenser 2, 1, valves, and outdoor air 24), in which a compressor (1), a first stop valve (6), an outdoor heat exchanger (condenser 2), and a first check valve (8) connected through pipelines are arranged (see Figure 1), wherein, the first stop valve (6) is arranged between a first end of the outdoor heat exchanger and an exhaust port of the compressor (system is closed loops, therefore all elements are in this arrangement); a first type indoor unit (3, 4, 21), in which a first indoor heat exchanger (4), a first throttling element with a shut-off function (3), a first regulating valve (21), a second stop valve (29), and a second check valve (22) are respectively arranged (system is closed loops, therefore all elements are in this arrangement), wherein, a first end of the first indoor heat exchanger (4) is connected to a second end of the outdoor heat exchanger (2) through the first throttling element and the first check valve (system is closed loops, therefore all elements are in this arrangement), while the first end of the first indoor heat exchanger (4) is at the same time connected to the exhaust port of the compressor (1) through the second stop valve (system is closed loops, therefore all elements are in this arrangement), and a second end of the first indoor heat exchanger (4) is connected to the suction port of the compressor (1) through the first regulating valve (system is closed loops, therefore all elements are in this arrangement), while the second end of the first indoor heat exchanger (4) is at the same time connected to the second end of the outdoor heat exchanger (2) through the second check valve and the first check valve (system is closed loops, therefore all elements are in this arrangement); and a second type indoor unit (piping to 18 and 20), in which a second indoor heat exchanger (18, 20), a second throttling element with a shut-off function (17), a second regulating valve (19), a third stop valve (7), and a third check valve (16) are respectively arranged, wherein, a first end of the second indoor heat exchanger (18, 20) is connected to the second end of the outdoor heat exchanger (2) through the second throttling element (17) and the first check valve (8), while the first end of the second indoor heat exchanger (4) is at the same time connected to the exhaust port of the compressor (1) through the third stop valve (7), and a second end of the second indoor heat exchanger (18, 20) is connected to the suction port of the compressor (1) through the second regulating valve (19), while the second end of the second indoor heat exchanger (18, 20) is at the same time connected to the second end of the outdoor heat exchanger (2) through the third check valve (16) and the first check valve (8, system is closed loops, therefore all elements are in this arrangement).
Regarding Claim 2: Schroeder teaches wherein the first regulating valve (3, 7, 12, 14, of 21) and the second regulating valve (3, 7, 12, 14, of 21) are continuously adjustable regulating valves (functional limitations of expansion valves in operating mode).
Regarding Claim 16. Schroeder teaches a transport refrigeration vehicle (title), comprising: the multi-temperature air conditioning system (title) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above); a plurality of compartment zones independent of each other (page 4 of the machine translation); wherein the first type indoor unit (4, 18, or 20) or the second type indoor unit (4, 18, or 20) is arranged alternatively in each compartment zone (see Figure 1).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (DE 102011118162 A1, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Schroeder,” in view of He et al. (US 2019/0128573), hereafter referred to as “He.”
Regarding Claim 3: Schroeder fails to teach further comprising a controller that communicates with the first regulating valve, the second regulating valve, the first stop valve, the second stop valve, the third stop valve, the first throttling element, the second throttling element, or any combination thereof.
He teaches a controller (22) that communicates with a first regulating valve, a second regulating valve, a first stop valve, a second stop valve, a third stop valve, a first throttling element, a second throttling element, or any combination thereof (paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a controller that communicates with the first regulating valve, the second regulating valve, the first stop valve, the second stop valve, the third stop valve, the first throttling element, the second throttling element, or any combination thereof to the structure of Schroeder as taught by He in order to advantageously provide automated control of the system based on demand (see He, paragraph [0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sekigami et al. (4,878,357).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763