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 .
Priority
This application claims priority to provisional application 63/438,406, with a filing date of 1/11/2023. This action is in response to the filing made 1/09/2024.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 will be allowable if amended to incorporate the limitations of its parent claims(s), provided that any applicable 112 rejections are resolved.
Claim 15 will be allowable, for the reasons provided below, provided that the 112 rejection of this claim is resolved. Claims 16-18 and 20 depend from claim 15 and will also be allowable via their dependency from claim 15.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2, in Fig. 2B, in the reply filed on 12/03/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant asserts that claims 1-13, 15-18, and 20 read on the elected species, and applicant thus withdraws claims 14 and 19 from consideration.
NOTE: The office is also withdrawing claim 7, and its dependent claims 8-12, with the approval of applicant’s attorney, for the reasons described in the Interview Summary enclosed herewith.
The claims under examination are 1-6, 13, 15-18, 20.
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 1-20 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
The claim recites the limitations, “first coil”, “second coil”, “first channel”, “second channel comprising an inlet, an outlet”, and “guide portion”
These limitations are not clear because the office is unable to locate a numbered feature in the specification and drawings using this terminology. See MPEP 608.01(0), “The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.”
Claims 4, 6
Claim 4 recites, further comprising a catch comprising a filter, . . . . configured to be positioned beneath the first coil to collect the condensate from the first coil.
It is not clear if the catch is actually in the system or merely “configured to be positioned” in it.
Claim 6 recites essentially the same language as claim 4.
Claim 15
The claim recites the terms, “first coil”, “second coil”, “channel system”, and “heating channel”.
These limitations are not clear because the office is unable to locate a numbered feature in the specification and drawings using this terminology. See MPEP 608.01(0), “The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.”
Claims dependent upon those specifically discussed above are likewise rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of the parent claims.
In the interests of compact prosecution, the claims are examined herein against the art as best as possible, notwithstanding the lack of clarity in the claims. If amendments are made to resolve the clarity issues, new searches for prior art will be necessary.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023-0332778 to Vakiloroaya (hereafter “Vak”) in view of US 4,313,314 to Boyanich and US 6,289,685 to Utsumi.
Regarding claim 1, Vak teaches a heat pump system comprising:
a first coil (1300, Fig. 2 ) configured to receive a refrigerant and exchange thermal energy with the refrigerant, the first coil being in fluid communication with at least an expansion valve;
a second coil (2000, Fig. 2) configured to receive the refrigerant and exchange thermal energy with the refrigerant, the second coil being in fluid communication with the expansion valve (1200);
a compressor (1400) in fluid communication with and positioned between the first coil (1300) and the second coil (2000);
a first channel (2150) configured to receive a condensate from an exterior of the first coil and to guide the condensate towards the second coil (Fig. 2, 3); and
a second channel comprising an inlet, an outlet, and a guide portion positioned between the inlet and the outlet, the inlet in fluid communication with the compressor and the outlet in fluid communication with the first coil, and the guide configured to guide the refrigerant from the inlet to the outlet (unnumbered line extending from compressor (1400) to items (1100) and (2000).
To the extent applicant might argue that Vak does not teach a heat pump because it does not contain a reversing valve, it is well known in the relevant art that vapor compression systems, including window units, can be adapted to function as a heat pump by including a device such as a reversing valve, and the associated plumbing, as demonstrated by Boyanich, (col. 1 line 60 to col. 2, line 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Vak, in view of Boyanich, in order to provide a system that can provide both heating and cooling from one device.
Vak does not teach
wherein the second channel is configured to exchange thermal energy with at least a portion of the first channel.
Utsumi teaches
An air conditioner where a tube is spirally wound around a passage, for exchanging heat between fluids in the tube and passage. (Fig. 4, Col. 4, lines 1-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Vak, in view of Utsumi, in order to provide a low profile means for exchanging heat between two channels already existing in the system.
Regarding claim 2, Vak teaches the heat pump system of claim 1, wherein the first channel further comprises an insulated outer portion configured to insulate the condensate traversing the first channel. (pars. 25, 40)
Regarding claim 3, Vak as modified teaches the heat pump system of claim 1, wherein the second channel is configured to spiral about the first channel for at least a portion of the first channel. (See Figures in Utsumi, recited in the rejection of claim 1)
Claim(s) 4-6, 15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023-0332778 to Vakiloroaya (hereafter “Vak”) in view of US 4,313,314 to Boyanich, US 6,289,685 to Utsumi and US 2014/0216093 to Kaiser.
Regarding claim 4, Vak teaches the heat pump system of claim 1, further comprising a catch (2100, Fig. 1), the catch being in fluid communication with the first channel (2150) and configured to be positioned beneath the first coil (1300) to collect the condensate from the first coil. (Fig. 1)
Vak does not teach,
The catch comprising a filter, the catch being in fluid communication with the first channel via the filter.
Kaiser teaches using a stainless steel filter to filter metallic debris that may be collected in the condensate. (par. 65, 68, 70).
Regarding claim 5, Vak as modified teaches the heat pump system of claim 4, wherein the filter comprises a stainless-steel mesh configured to remove impurities from the condensate. (see the rejection of claim 4)
Regarding claim 6, Vak as modified teaches the heat pump system of claim 1, further comprising a catch and a filter in fluid communication with and positioned between the catch and the first channel, the catch being configured to be positioned beneath the first coil to collect the condensate from the first coil. (see the rejection of claim 4, and Fig. 1 of Vak).
Regarding claim 15, A method for heating and humidification using a heat pump installed on a structure such that the heat pump is positioned inside and outside the structure, the method comprising: (this is addressed in the claim rejections above, which includes a reversing valve, thus the system will therefore perform heating and cooling)
the heat pump comprising a first coil positioned outside the structure and adapted to receive a refrigerant, a second coil positioned inside the structure and adapted to be in fluid communication with the first coil via a compressor and a reversing valve, a channel system adapted to guide a condensate received from an exterior of the first coil, and a heating channel positioned between the compressor and the first coil and adapted to circulate a portion of the refrigerant;
the prior art previously recited in this action, against the structure of the system, teaches all of these limitations including the newly recited controller, which is taught by Vak, par. 114).
activating, by a controller, a defrost mode of the heat pump (AV systems typically have defrost capability)
Regarding the remainder of the limitations, the prior art of record does not teach using a reversing valve method of defrost, nor is there any apparent motivation do so, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
causing the reversing valve to transition from a first position to a second position to cause the refrigerant to heat the first coil;
causing the heating channel to circulate the refrigerant about at least a portion of the channel system;
causing the channel system to direct the condensate towards the second coil;
causing the reversing valve to transition back to the first position to cause the refrigerant to heat the first coil; and
causing the channel system to deposit the condensate onto an exterior surface of the second coil after causing the reversing valve to transition back to the first position.
Claim 16-20 depend from claim 15.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein causing the channel system to deposit the condensate onto an exterior surface of the second coil comprises causing the channel system to drip, spray, or nebulize the second condensate onto the second coil.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein the heat pump further comprises a filter and wherein causing the channel system to direct the condensate towards the second coil causes the condensate to traverse the filter.
18. The method of claim 15, further comprising activating a pump to direct the condensate towards the second coil.
20. The method of claim 15, further comprising causing the second coil to reach a set temperature to cause the condensate to transition from a liquid state to a gaseous state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T CRENSHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1550. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, JD Fletcher can be reached on 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.
/HENRY T CRENSHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763