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 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 11, and 17 have been amended. Claims 7 and 16 have been canceled. By virtue of dependency, the depending claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are also amended in scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 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.
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: expansion device in claims 3-4 and 14-15.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiike (5,052,189) in view of Trask (3,529,659).
Regarding Claim 1: Akiike teaches a reversible heat pump refrigeration system (title, via valve 4) comprising: a refrigeration loop (see Figure 12) comprising an outdoor heat exchanger (5) and an indoor heat exchanger (61/60); a valve body (body of 4) fluidly coupled to the refrigeration loop (see Figure 12), the valve body (body of 4) comprising: a valve inlet and a valve outlet (see 4 in Figure 12); and a first port and a second port (see 4 in Figure 12); a compressor (1) having a suction side fluidly coupled to the valve outlet and a pressure side fluidly coupled to the valve inlet (the refrigeration loop of Figure 12 is closed loop); and a bypass fluid path (line 27), wherein: the valve outlet (see 4 in Figure 12) includes a heat exchanger (6) having a first connection (line into 6) and a second connection (line out of 6); and the bypass fluid path (line 27) extends directly between the first connection and the second connection (see Figure 12) whereby fluid is permitted to flow through the bypass fluid path (line 27) directly from one of the first connection or the second connection to the other of the first connection or the second connection to bypass the heat exchanger (6).
Akiike fails to teach a shuttle selectively movable in the valve body between a first position and a second position.
Trask teaches a shuttle (7) selectively movable in a valve body (body of 4) between a first position and a second position (Column 3, lines 20-27).
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 shuttle selectively movable in the valve body between a first position and a second position to the structure of Akiike as taught by Trask in order to advantageously close and open valve pathways depending on operation mode (see Trask, Column 3, lines 20-27).
Regarding Claim 2: Akiike further teaches wherein: the outdoor heat exchanger (5) is fluidly coupled to the refrigeration loop (see Figure 12) between the first port (the refrigeration loop of Figure 12 is closed loop) and the first connection (line into 6); and the indoor heat exchanger (61/60) is fluidly coupled to the refrigeration loop (see Figure 12) between the second port and the second connection (line out of 6, the refrigeration loop of Figure 12 is closed loop).
Regarding Claim 3: Akiike further teaches further comprising an expansion device (8) fluidly coupled to the refrigeration loop (the refrigeration loop of Figure 12 is closed loop) between the second connection (line out of 6) and the indoor heat exchanger (61/60).
Regarding Claim 5: Akiike teaches wherein: the shuttle in the first position fluidly couples the first port with the valve outlet and fluidly couples the valve inlet with the second port.
Trask further teaches wherein: a shuttle (7) in a first position fluidly couples a first port with a valve outlet and fluidly couples a valve inlet with a second port (see Figure 1, Column 3, lines 20-27).
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 wherein: the shuttle in the first position fluidly couples the first port with the valve outlet and fluidly couples the valve inlet with the second port to the structure of Akiike as taught by Trask in order to advantageously close and open valve pathways depending on operation mode (see Trask, Column 3, lines 20-27).
Regarding Claim 6: Akiike fails to teaches wherein: the shuttle in the second position fluidly couples the valve outlet with the second port and fluidly couples the valve inlet with the first port.
Trask further teaches wherein: a shuttle (7) in a second position fluidly couples a valve outlet with a second port and fluidly couples a valve inlet with a first port (Column 3, lines 20-27).
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 wherein: the shuttle in the second position fluidly couples the valve outlet with the second port and fluidly couples the valve inlet with the first port to the structure of Akiike as taught by Trask in order to advantageously close and open valve pathways depending on operation mode (see Trask, Column 3, lines 20-27).
Regarding Claim 8: Akiike teaches further comprising a check valve (9) in the bypass fluid path (line 27).
Regarding Claim 9: Akiike teaches wherein: the check valve (9) blocks a fluid flow in the bypass fluid path (line 27) from the first connection (line into 6, see Figure 12) to the second connection (line out of 6); and the check valve (9) facilitates a fluid flow in the bypass fluid path (line 27) from the second connection (line out of 6, see Figure 12) to the first connection (line into 6, see Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 11: Akiike teaches a reversing valve assembly (via valve 4) comprising: a valve body (body of 4) comprising: a valve inlet and a valve outlet (see 4 in Figure 12); and a first port and a second port (see 4 in Figure 12); and a bypass fluid path (line 27), wherein: the valve outlet (see 4 in Figure 12) includes a heat exchanger (6) having a first connection (line into 6) and a second connection (line out of 6); and the bypass fluid path (line 27) extends directly between the first connection (line into 6) and the second connection (line out of 6) whereby fluid is permitted to flow through the bypass fluid path (line 27) directly from one of the first connection (line into 6) or the second connection (line exiting 6) to the other of the first connection (line into 6) or the second connection (line exiting 6) to bypass the heat exchanger (6).
Akiike fails to teach a shuttle selectively movable in the valve body between a first position and a second position.
Trask teaches a shuttle (7) selectively movable in a valve body (body of 4) between a first position and a second position (Column 3, lines 20-27).
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 shuttle selectively movable in the valve body between a first position and a second position to the structure of Akiike as taught by Trask in order to advantageously close and open valve pathways depending on operation mode (see Trask, Column 3, lines 20-27).
Regarding Claim 12: Akiike fails to teach the shuttle in the first position fluidly couples the first port with the valve outlet and fluidly couples the valve inlet with the second port.
Trask teaches wherein: the shuttle (7) in the first position fluidly couples the first port with the valve outlet and fluidly couples the valve inlet with the second port (Column 3, lines 20-27).
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 the shuttle in the first position fluidly couples the first port with the valve outlet and fluidly couples the valve inlet with the second port to the structure of Akiike as taught by Trask in order to advantageously close and open valve pathways depending on operation mode (see Trask, Column 3, lines 20-27).
Regarding Claim 13: Akiike fails to teach wherein: the shuttle in the second position fluidly couples the valve outlet with the second port and fluidly couples the valve inlet with the first port.
Trask teaches wherein: a shuttle (7) in a second position fluidly couples a valve outlet with a second port and fluidly couples a valve inlet with a first port (Column 3, lines 20-27).
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 wherein: the shuttle in the second position fluidly couples the valve outlet with the second port and fluidly couples the valve inlet with the first port to the structure of Akiike as taught by Trask in order to advantageously close and open valve pathways depending on operation mode (see Trask, Column 3, lines 20-27).
Regarding Claim 14: Akiike teaches further comprising an expansion device (8) fluidly coupled to the second connection (line out of 6, see Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 17: Akiike teaches further comprising a check valve (9) in the bypass fluid path (line 27, see Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 18: Akiike teaches wherein: the check valve (9) blocks a fluid flow in the bypass fluid path (line 27) from the first connection (line into 6) to the second connection (line exit after 6, see Figure 12); and the check valve (9) facilitates a fluid flow in the bypass fluid path (line 27) from the second connection (line exit after 6 see Figure 12) to the first connection (line into 6, the refrigeration loop of Figure 12 is closed loop).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiike (5,052,189) in view of Trask (3,529,659), as applied to claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of Junge et al. (US 2016/0109160 A1), hereafter referred to as “Junge.”
Regarding Claim 4: Akiike modified supra fails to teach wherein the expansion device is an electronic expansion valve.
Junge teaches wherein an expansion device is an electronic expansion valve (paragraph [0002]).
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 wherein the expansion device is an electronic expansion valve to the structure of Akiike modified supra as taught by Junge in order to advantageously provide various examples of known valve structures (see Junge, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding Claim 15: Akiike modified supra fails to teach wherein the expansion device is an electronic expansion valve.
Junge teaches wherein an expansion device is an electronic expansion valve (paragraph [0002]).
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 wherein the expansion device is an electronic expansion valve to the structure of Akiike modified supra as taught by Junge in order to advantageously provide various examples of known valve structures (see Junge, paragraph [0002]).
Claims 10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiike (5,052,189) in view of Trask (3,529,659), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Cochran, Jr. (3,823,572).
Regarding Claim 10: Akiike modified supra fails to teach wherein the heat exchanger is one of a tube-in-tube heat exchanger or a shell and coil heat exchanger.
Cochran teaches a heat exchanger is one of a tube-in-tube heat exchanger or a shell and coil heat exchanger (Column 1, lines 29-39).
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 wherein the heat exchanger is one of a tube-in-tube heat exchanger or a shell and coil heat exchanger to the structure of Akiike modified supra as taught by Cochran in order to advantageously provide various examples of known heat exchanger structures (see Cochran, Column 1, lines 29-39).
Regarding Claim 19: Akiike modified supra fails to teach wherein the heat exchanger is a tube-in-tube heat exchanger.
Cochran teaches a heat exchanger is a tube-in-tube heat exchanger (Column 1, lines 29-39).
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 wherein the heat exchanger is a tube-in-tube heat exchanger to the structure of Akiike modified supra as taught by Cochran in order to advantageously provide various examples of known heat exchanger structures (see Cochran, Column 1, lines 29-39).
Regarding Claim 20: Akiike modified supra fails to teach wherein the heat exchanger is a shell and coil heat exchanger.
Cochran teaches a heat exchanger is a shell and coil heat exchanger (Column 1, lines 29-39).
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 wherein the heat exchanger is a shell and coil heat exchanger to the structure of Akiike modified supra as taught by Cochran in order to advantageously provide various examples of known heat exchanger structures (see Cochran, Column 1, lines 29-39).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McCloy (2,351,140).
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 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
Prosecution Insights