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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 (JP2012172919A – provided by Applicant in the IDS, previously cited) in view of Higashiiue (US 2013/0213083).
Regarding claim 1, FOR1 teaches a refrigeration cycle device (see Title) comprising:
a heat exchanger (16, Fig. 1, see Description) having a plurality of refrigerant flow paths including a first refrigerant flow path and a second refrigerant flow path (16, Fig. 1);
a plurality of flow rate adjusters that adjust flow rates of a refrigerant flowing through the respective refrigerant flow paths (21, 40, Fig. 6, see Description); and
a controller (see Description which notes controls being performed which implies a controller), wherein the controller adjusts the flow rates of the refrigerant flowing through the refrigerant flow paths by controlling opening degrees of the flow rate adjusters (see Description, “When energy saving control is performed, the refrigerant supplied from the high-pressure liquid receiver 13 to the first cooling coil system 36a or the second cooling coil system 36b by turning on / off the expansion valve 14 or the electromagnetic valve 21”).
FOR1 does not teach:
controls the opening degrees of the respective flow rate adjusters based on a first value that is a value representing overall efficiency of a refrigeration cycle.
Higashiiue teaches a refrigeration cycle apparatus (Higashiiue, Title) wherein the opening degree of a control valve is controlled to open based on a calculated degree of subcooling, wherein the degree of subcooling is a set value of the operating efficiency of the refrigeration cycle at its maximum (Higashiiue, paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with controlling the opening degrees of the respective flow rate adjusters based on a first value that is a value representing overall efficiency of a refrigeration cycle, as taught by HIgashiiue, in order to effectively control the desired efficiency of the system.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Higashiiue, further in view of Sakai (US 2014/0230480).
Regarding claim 2, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1, but does not teach the first value includes an electric power consumption value of a compressor that compresses the refrigerant or a pressure value of the refrigerant flowing through the heat exchanger.
Sakai teaches a relation between between the pressure in a heat exchanger and the impact on the efficiency of the refrigeration cycle (Sakai, paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including the pressure value of refrigerant flowing through a heat exchanger, as taught by Sakai, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Higashiiue and Sakai, further in view of Adetola (US 2019/0283530).
Regarding claim 4, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 2, wherein the first value further includes a temperature of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger.
Adetola teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is dependent on outside air temperature (Adetola, paragraph [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including a temperature of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger, as taught by Adetola, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Regarding claim 11, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1, but does not teach the first value further includes a temperature of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger.
Adetola teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is dependent on outside air temperature (Adetola, paragraph [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including a temperature of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger, as taught by Adetola, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Claims 5-6, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Higashiiue and Sakai, further in view of Kopko (US 2014/0318162).
Regarding claim 5, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 2, but does not teach the first value further includes a rotation speed of a fan that generates a flow of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger.
Kopko teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is related condenser fan speed (Kopko, paragraph [0043], Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including a rotation speed of a fan that generates a flow of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger, as taught by Kopko, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Regarding claim 6, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 2, but does not teach the first value further includes a rotation speed of the compressor.
Kopko teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is related compressor speed (Kopko, paragraph [0043], Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including a rotation speed of the compressor, as taught by Kopko, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Regarding claim 12, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to 1, but does not teach the first value further includes a rotation speed of a fan that generates a flow of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger.
Kopko teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is related compressor speed (Kopko, paragraph [0043], Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including a rotation speed of the compressor, as taught by Kopko, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Regarding claim 13, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1, but does not teach the first value further includes a rotation speed of a fan that generates a flow of air that exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the heat exchanger.
Kopko teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is related compressor speed (Kopko, paragraph [0043], Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including a rotation speed of the compressor, as taught by Kopko, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Regarding claim 14, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1, but does not teach the first value further includes a rotation speed of the compressor.
Kopko teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is related compressor speed (Kopko, paragraph [0043], Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including a rotation speed of the compressor, as taught by Kopko, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Regarding claim 16, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 5, but does not teach the first value further includes a rotation speed of the compressor.
Kopko teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is related compressor speed (Kopko, paragraph [0043], Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including a rotation speed of the compressor, as taught by Kopko, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Higashiiue, Sakai, and Adetola further in view of Kopko (US 2014/0318162)
Regarding claim 15, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 4, but does not teach the first value further includes a rotation speed of the compressor.
Kopko teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is related compressor speed (Kopko, paragraph [0043], Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including a rotation speed of the compressor, as taught by Kopko, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Higashiiue and Sakai, further in view of Otake (US 2010/0300135).
Regarding claim 7, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 2, but does not teach the first value further includes an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant.
Otake teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is related to the expansion valve’s opening degree (Otake, paragraph [0167]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant, as taught by Otake, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Regarding claim 17, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1, but does not teach the first value further includes an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant.
Otake teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is related to the expansion valve’s opening degree (Otake, paragraph [0167]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant, as taught by Otake, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Higashiiue, Sakai, and Adetola further in view of Otake (US 2010/0300135).
Regarding claim 18, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 4, but does not teach the first value further includes an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant.
Otake teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is related to the expansion valve’s opening degree (Otake, paragraph [0167]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant, as taught by Otake, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Higashiiue, Sakai, and Kopko, further in view of Otake (US 2010/0300135).
Regarding claim 19, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 5, but does not teach the first value further includes an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant.
Otake teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is related to the expansion valve’s opening degree (Otake, paragraph [0167]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant, as taught by Otake, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Higashiiue, Sakai, and Kopko, further in view of Otake (US 2010/0300135).
Regarding claim 20, FOR1 teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 6, but does not teach the first value further includes an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant.
Otake teaches that refrigeration cycle efficiency is related to the expansion valve’s opening degree (Otake, paragraph [0167]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with the first value including an opening degree of an expansion valve that adjusts the flow rate of the refrigerant, as taught by Otake, in order to provide further variables to the efficiency determination thereby creating greater accuracy in the determination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are 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 (JP2012172919A) in view of Yoshimi (US 2022/0268503).
The prior art of record when considered as a whole, either alone or in combination, does not anticipate or render obvious:
Regarding claim 8:
a learning processor that associates with each other and learns a combination of the opening degrees of the plurality of flow rate adjusters and the first value or the second value when the opening degrees of the plurality of flow rate adjusters correspond to the combination of the opening degrees, wherein the learning device classifies the combination of the opening degrees in accordance with a level of a heat exchange capability of the heat exchanger, the level of the heat exchange capability being estimated from the first value or the second value, and the controller controls the opening degrees of the respective flow rate adjusters by using the combination of the opening degrees classified, by the learning device, into a class at which the heat exchange capability of the heat exchanger is higher than a predetermined value.
Regarding claim 9:
a learning processor that associates with each other and learns a combination of the opening degrees of the plurality of flow rate adjusters and the first value or the second value when the opening degrees of the plurality of flow rate adjusters correspond to the combination of the opening degrees, wherein the learning device calculates the combination of the opening degrees, the combination improving the heat exchange capability of the heat exchanger, the heat exchange capability being estimated from the first value or the second value, and the controller controls the opening degrees of the respective flow rate adjusters by using the combination of the opening degrees calculated by the learning 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 independent claim 1, with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
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
Prosecution Insights